KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 347/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 19.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 169/2022 of CDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Naveen & Sreeraj, SN Enterprises, Door No. 12/202/112, Madhukarai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, Pin-641 105 now at 307-E, Perummal Kovil Veethi (WD 25), Madhukarai Market, Tamil Nadu-641 105.

(By Adv. Jayakrishnan D.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sameena N.K., W/o Shareef, Thudiyankavil House, Marancheri P.O., Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram.

JUDGMENT

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

The opposite party in C.C. No. 169/2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short) is the appellant.  The appellant is aggrieved by the final order dated 24.04.2023, allowing the complaint.   As per the order appealed against, the appellant has been directed to refund Rs. 33,500/-, the cost of the oil tank sold by them to the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. 

2.  The respondent who is the complainant before the District Commission had purchased an 8 mm SS Prime Tank of 1000 litre capacity on 02.04.2022 from the appellant for an amount of Rs. 33,000/-.  It was a powder coated tank which was purchased for storing coconut oil.  According to the complainant, it started showing defects from the very first day of its installation.  Though the appellant was being contacted continuously for rectifying the defects, they did not respond.  As a result of the defects in the tank the unit of the complainant could not be worked properly.  Consequently she also faced financial crisis.  The complainant’s husband is a gulf returnee who had lost his job due to Covid pandemic.  Therefore, they had started an oil mill for the livelihood of their family.  The unit was started by raising the required funds from the Margin Money Grant Scheme of the Industrial Department.  According to the complainant, the conduct of the appellant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore, she sought for refund of the sale price of the steel tank and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the appellant. 

3.  The complaint was admitted by the District Commission and notice was issued to the appellant.  Though notice was taken out three or four times, they were all returned with the postal endorsement ‘left’.  Notice was issued to the appellant through their e-mail address also.  In spite of the above, on finding that there was no response the appellant was set ex-parte.  On 30.01.2023 the appellant filed a petition to advance the complaint and to set aside the order setting them ex-parte.  The District Commission dismissed the petition finding that there was no merit in the application since notice had been taken out several times, all of which were returned with the endorsement ‘left’. 

4.  The respondent /complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. A1 to A5 documents.  The District Commission considering the evidence on the side of the respondent found that she had proved her case and allowed the complaint.  Accordingly, the appellant has been directed to refund the sale price of the steel tank, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and a further amount of Rs. 2,000/- as costs. 

5.  According to the counsel for the appellant, this is a case in which admittedly no notice had been served on the appellant.  They were set ex-parte merely relying on the postal endorsement ‘left’ on the cover that was returned.  A petition to set aside the order declaring them ex-parte was also dismissed.  It is contended that the manufacturer of the oil tank was a necessary party.  The manufacturer is the person liable for any defect in the tank.  The appellant had only sold the tank.  No expert evidence was obtained by the complainant identifying what the alleged defect was.  Therefore it is contended that, the appellant was denied an effective opportunity to place and prove their case.  On the above grounds, the counsel seeks interference with the order of the District Commission. 

6.  This appeal is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant, at length.  We notice from the order appealed against that the District Commission had issued notice to the appellant a number of times.  All the notices were returned with the postal endorsement ‘left’.  Therefore, notice was also issued in the e-mail address of the appellant.  In spite of the above they did not appear.  It was for the said reason that, the appellant was set ex-parte. 

7.  We notice from the address of the appellant that, it is the very same addresses in which notices were issued by the District Commission.  It is clear from the address of the appellant in the appeal that, they are even now conducting the shop in the said address.  They have received the copy of the order appealed against, despatched by the District Commission on 10.05.2023 at the very same address.  They have no case that they were not available at the said address at any point of time during the pendency of these proceedings.  Therefore we are not prepared to accept the contention that the order passed against them was without proper notice.  Since they had not responded, the District Commission set them ex-parte and proceeded to consider the complaint on the merits.  Accordingly, the complaint has been allowed, placing reliance on the evidence adduced by the complainant. 

8.  It is clear from the conduct of the appellant that, they were deliberately evading the notices that were issued by the District Commission.  Therefore, the District Commission had no other option but to proceed with the matter after declaring them ex-parte.  We notice that the appellant has no explanation as to why they had not responded to the notice issued to them at their e-mail address.  Their conduct of not having responded to the complaints made by the respondent/complainant about their product also indicates their insensitive attitude.  In this appeal also, the main contention put forward is only that the manufacturer was not made a party to the complaint.  At the same time, they have no dispute that the tank was not sold by them. 

Taking into account all the above aspects, we are not satisfied that any useful purpose will be served by admitting this appeal.  This appeal is therefore dismissed.  No costs.     

The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgment. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                           AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                           BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                                          RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER