KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 173/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 11/2015 of CDRF, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                             : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Moosa Kotta Naduthody, S/o Avarankutty, Arifa Manzil, Nediyiruppu Amsom Desom, Nediyiruppu P.O., Kondotty (via) Pin-673 638, Malappuram.

                         (By Advs. S. Reghukumar & K.T. Sidhiq)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

N.M. Ashraf, Managing Director, SRANG Engineering Works, Ekaparamba, Kondotty-673 638.

              (By Advs. K. Dhananjayan & Shiby P.P.)

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The complainant in C.C. No. 11/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (in short the District Forum) has filed the appeal against the order passed by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed and the complainant was directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the opposite party.

2.  The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows: The complainant purchased a fire wood cutting machine from the opposite party for Rs. 3,26,625/- on 07.02.2014.  The said machine became defunct on the date of installation itself.  The opposite party failed to detect the defects and repair it.  The opposite party has not refunded its price also.  So the service of the opposite party was defective and he was cheating the complainant.  So complainant is entitled to Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation. 

3.  The opposite party filed version raising the following contentions.  The complainant purchased the machinery for his business purpose.  He had rented out the fire wood cutting machine to a furniture unit functioning in the house of one Pathumma at Mongam.  The electricity connection was availed for operating the machine in the name of said Pathumma.  This machine was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party and there was no defect for the machine.  The opposite party obtained only Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant as the price of the machine.  Though complainant had demanded balance amount of Rs. 2,76,625/- from the opposite party, as per the instructions of the complainant he gave a cheque for Rs. 2,76,625/- in the name of his son.  So a huge amount is shown as the value of the machine by the complainant only for availing a loan for a huge amount from the bank.  When the complainant requested the opposite party for checking the machine, the opposite party obliged the complainant.  There is no defect for the machine even at the time of complaint.  If the machine is examined by an expert it will become obvious that the machinery has no manufacturing defect.  Thus complainant is not entitled to realize any amount from the opposite party. 

4.  Complainant filed proof affidavit and no document was marked on his side.  Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on his side. 

5.  After considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the District Forum has passed the impugned order.

6.  Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant has filed the present appeal.

7.  Heard.  Perused the records.

8.  The parties are referred according to their rank/status in the original complaint.

9.  There is no dispute to the fact that the complainant purchased a fire wood cutting machine (wood slitting machine) from the opposite party.  The allegation of the complainant is that the said machine became defunct and so the opposite party is liable to return the price of the machine and pay Rs. 7,00,000/- as compensation.  According to the opposite party the complainant had rented out the machine to a furniture unit working in the building of one Pathumma and it was functioning even at the time of filing of the complaint.  So the complainant is not entitled to get any amount from him.  It is stated by the opposite party that the complainant had borrowed amounts from him and in order to escape from repayment of the said amounts the complainant has filed a false complaint against him.  The District Forum found that there is no evidence to find that the fire wood cutting machine of the complainant purchased from the opposite party was defective and not functioning properly and so the complainant has been held not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party. 

10.  In the complaint it is stated that the fire wood cutting machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was not functioning.  But there is no description regarding the nature of the defects of the said machine.  As found by the District Forum since the opposite party has specifically contended that there is no defect to the machine and it was functioning well even at the time of filing of the complaint, the burden was on the complainant to prove that the machine was defective and it was not functioning.  No attempt was made by the complainant to prove that the machine was defective and it was not functioning.   In the version filed by the opposite party they had specifically stated that if the machine is inspected by an expert commissioner it would be revealed that there was no manufacturing defect to the machine.  But the complainant has not taken any steps to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the machine and file report.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the machine was defective and it was not functioning.  Considering all these facts, the District Forum found that from the available evidence there is no ground to assume that the fire wood cutting machine purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective and it was not functioning properly and hence the complainant was not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party.  Hence the complaint was dismissed.  We find that there is no reason/ground to interfere with the finding of the order passed by the District Forum. 

11.  The District Forum directed the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the opposite party.  It is stated by the District Forum that from the records it can be seen that the complainant was very negligent in prosecuting the matter and he did not reveal the crucial aspects regarding the machinery.  The nature of the complaint and the method of prosecuting the matter by the complainant led to the inference that the complainant was having some ulterior motives in filing the complaint.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the said observation made by the District Forum is without any basis.  He pointed out that as per Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even for a frivolous and vexatious complaint the penalty provided is not exceeding Rs. 10,000/-.  In this case there is no finding by the District Forum that the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was a frivolous and vexatious one.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the District Forum directing the complainant to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party was unjust and he prayed that the said order may be set aside.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider that the order passed by the District Forum directing the complainant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the opposite party is to be set aside.  We do so.  So the order passed by the District Forum is to be modified to that effect. 

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the District Forum is modified.  The order passed by the District Forum directing the complainant/appellant to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the opposite party/respondent is set aside. 

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. 

 JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                        T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                   RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

jb