KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.217/11

JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                    --  MEMBER

Optik Mannath,

EPJ Building,                                                      --  APPELLANT

Vazhakkala, Kakkanad,

Cochin- 682030.

                   Vs.

Olena Paul,

5-A, RDS Rhythem,                                            --  RESPONDENT

Padamughal, Cochin,

Kerala, Kochi – 682030.

                                      JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

     The appellant is the opposite party in CC. 680/10 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs. 3,300/-  the price of the spectacles with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that on 18.12.10, she purchased spectacles from the opposite party/shop.   At the time, there was two scratches on both the lenses and one of the lenses was not properly fitted on the frame.   The fixing hole in the lens was much bigger than that in the  frame.  When she requested the  Shop Manager  to replace the lenses, it was told that she have to pay   Rs.800/- extra.  

          3. The appellant/opposite party was ex-parte before the Forum.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.A1, the bill.

          5. There is mentioned in the appeal memorandum that the reason for the absence of the appellant in the forum is that at that time he was out of station for some business purposes and that the  notice was served on the staff  at the appellant concern.  The above explanation is hardly sufficient to explain the reasons for the absence of the appellant before the Forum.    It was his duty to arrange for the receipt of postal articles etc. in his absence.  Further the appellant has not mentioned the details of his business tour as to where he went and on which date he returned etc.   On a perusal of the Forum, we find that there is no patent illegality.  The Forum  has heard the complainant and the receipt for purchase of the spectacles was also produced.    The complainant had appeared in person.   The absence of any contrary evidence, the Forum below has allowed the complaint.  In the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.  The appeal is dismissed in-limine.

Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER