KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 15/2023

ORDER DATED: 16.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 283/2019 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

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

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

The Manager, Marikar (Motors Ltd.), Honda Division, Nedumangad.

                      (By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Reshma S. Krishnan, Ajith Bhavan, Nalumukku, Vellanadu P.O., 695 545.

ORDER

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

The opposite party in C.C. No. 283/2019 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short) is in revision challenging an order dated 01.11.2022 in I.A. No. 389/2022.  As per the order under revision, an application was filed by the revision petitioner to direct the expert commissioner in the case to carry out a further inspection of the disputed vehicle and to report the present condition thereof.  The expert commissioner has further been sought to verify whether the problem that he had reported in his report dated 10.02.2020 was still subsisting or not.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission pointing out that the application was filed after closing the evidence of the opposite party, which according to the learned counsel is wrong. 

2.  It is contended that the vehicle has now been repaired and made free of the defects that were reported by the expert commissioner.  Therefore, it was absolutely necessary that the petition was allowed and the expert is deputed again, it is contended. 

3.  This revision is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the petitioner, elaborately. 

4.  It is not in dispute that the expert commissioner was appointed as per the order dated 10.02.2020 in I.A. No. 59/2020.  Pursuant to the said order the expert commissioner had inspected the disputed vehicle and had submitted his report dated 09.04.2021 which has been marked in the proceedings as Ext. C1.  As per Ext. C1 report, the expert commissioner has found that the vehicle was suffering from certain defects.  The present application was filed for having a second inspection of the vehicle conducted for the purpose of ascertaining its present condition. 

5.  The vehicle was having only temporary registration at the time of the first inspection of the expert commissioner.  Therefore, it is clear that when it developed the problems, it was new.  The complainant has therefore sought for refund of the purchase price.  As rightly found by the District Commission, what is material in this case is to find out what was the condition of the vehicle at the time of its purchase.  Since the present condition of the vehicle is not material for resolving the controversy in the complaint, the petition has been rightly dismissed by the District Commission. 

For the above reasons, we find no infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the order under revision warranting an interference therewith.  This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

                               Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT                

     Sd/-

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER 

                              Sd/-

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                              Sd/-

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb