KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 107/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 19.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Manager, : APPELLANT M/s Snowcap Ice-cream Pvt.Ltd., Nellikunnu, Near Kacheri Junction, Thrissur. (By Adv.Abraham John) Vs. P.B.Saidu Mohammad, : RESPONDENT Puthiyaveettil House, Hotel Sagar, Jasmin Villa, P.O.Kaippamangalam. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in OP.555/02 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.14250/- and sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost. 2.It is the case of the complainant that the freezer entrusted to him by the complainant for conducting ice cream outfit when returned had no defects and that for repair charges the appellant deducted a sum of Rs.3600/-As security a sum of Rs.19000/- was deposited with the opposite parties and as per the terms of the agreement depreciation of 15% of the 1st year and the 10% for the 2nd year are only liable to deducted. The balance worked out to Rs.14250/- but the opposite parties handed over only cheque for Rs.9775/- mentioning that a sum of Rs.3600/- was incurred for repair charges. It is pointed out that at the time of return of the freezer no survey of the freezer was conducted. It is alleged that it is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not returning the amount as per the agreement. 3. The opposite parties have contended that it is strictly as per the terms of the agreement that the amount was returned. It is the case of the appellant that the complainant was bound to return the freezer in perfect working condition. According to the opposite party the compressor of the freezer had become defective. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of RW1; Exts.P1 to P5 and Exts.R1 to R4. 5. Of course as per R1 agreement the complainant is bound to return the freezer in working condition. But as contended by the complainant there is no objective evidence to establish that at the time when the freezer was returned it was defective. The only evidence in this regard is the testimony of RW1 which is interested. As pointed out by the Forum there is no evidence to show that the freezer was a new one when it was entrusted to the complainant. As pointed out the guarantee card has not been produced. In the circumstances we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
