KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                                                   

                                       APPEAL NO.143/2010

                             JUDGMENT DATED 27.1.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                       --  MEMBER

The Proprietor,

M/s.Jose Electricals,

P.O.Box No.281, Beach Road,                         --  APPELLANT

Kollam.

   (By Adv.K.G.Mohandas Pai)

                   Vs.

Mr.Sanilkumar.N.

Swaralaya Kaithayil,                                            --  RESPONDENT

Nettayam P.O, Ambalamkunnu,

Kollam.

  (By Adv.G.S.Kalkura)                                                                                                           

                                                          JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in CC.09/08 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation.

          2. It is the case of the complainant   that he purchased electrical items from the opposite parties on 5.10.05.  The items purchased was of Clipsal Opal.     The items were Modulur, Switches and boards (frames).  He has accompanied by the electrical contractor at the time of purchase.   According to him, when the switches were fixed, two of them got broken at the time of screwing.  The contractor told him that as the items are new products of the company the same can be replaced.  The opposite parties replaced the same.  When the plugs were pulled out from the socket most of the grid frames were also broken and the wiring were exposed in the wall.  Thereafter also the contractor got the same replaced from the opposite party.  After some time the above frames were also got broken.  In the reply by the opposite party, it is stated that a copy of the letter of the complainant  has been forwarded to the company (manufacturer) and requested to take urgent steps.  A copy of the purchase bill was also asked to be given.  The same was given to the opposite party.   On 13.11.07 the representative of the company visited the house of the opposite party and examined the switch boards and assured to replace the same.  It is alleged that the switch boards which has to be used for a long time and  in the present edition, the same is risky.  As such all the switches will have to be replaced.  He has sought for a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation.

                    3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that at the time of purchase itself it was   informed to the complainant that the switches are of a new model and only if the boxes of Clipsel itself is fixed the same will suit.  The same was informed to the complainant as well as to the electrician.  It was at the insistence of the complainant and the electrician that the Clipsal  items were sold to the complainant.   When the complaints of breaking of the switch boards were conveyed to the opposite party    the opposite party had pointed out the reason for the above problem.  The opposite party had also replaced the broken materials.  It was also  informed to the manufacturer and the executive from the company had examined the switch boards at the house of the complainant and informed  the complainant that the damages was on account of the fact that the complainant did not install the boxes of Clipsal company and also replaced the broken items.  It is contended that the opposite party is a dealer of the Clipsal company for long and till now there is no complaints.

                    4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1& PW2, DW1  and EXts. P1 to P6.    

                    5. PW1 is the complainant and PW2 is the electrical contractor/electrician and DW1 is the Proprietor of the opposite party.    The complainant has produced apart from P1 bill the photographs of the damaged electrical installations.  Ext.P6 is the expert report which is prepared by PW2.

                    6. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the Forum has not considered the evidence at all and that extraneous   matters have been incorporated in the Judgment such as the non-existent admission that the opposite party admitted that most of the switch board   got damaged within the warranty period.    We find that the Forum has not considered the matter properly.  The matter has been disposed in a few sentences, without adverting to the respective contentions by the lady Member, who wrote the judgment.

                    7. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that even if the case of the complainant is  conceded  the cost of the disputed items   as per Ext.P1 is only Rs.1,883.59.  It is pointed out that the amount claimed is highly excessive.  It was re-iterated that the reason for the damage is the fixing of the frames in the boxes of another company.  It was pointed out by  the counsel for the respondent that DW1, the Proprietor of the opposite party himself has admitted at page 4 of the deposition that at the time of purchase he had not enquired  about as to whether the boxes are of which company.  We find that there is no such suggestion in the  cross examination of PW1. The above statement is contrary to the statement in the version that he had at the time of purchase itself cautioned the complainant that the boxes also should be of Clipson company.   Ext.B6 mentioned as the expert report cannot be said to be an objective piece of evidence in view of the fact that it has been prepared by PW2, the electrician/electrical contractor of the complainant himself.  The photographs produced would show the above electrical fittings in a damaged/detached condition.   As such we find no reason to  believe the  version of the complainant.  All the same, we find that the complaint has been filed after 2 years of the date of purchase as evident from Ext.P1 bill of purchase.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to show the cost of replacement although evidently the complainant would have replaced the fitting as according to  him it was dangerous to expose the wires.    

                    8. In the circumstances, we find that the amount awarded appears excessive.  Hence, the order of the Forum in this regard is modified as follows.  The appellants/opposite party would pay a sum of Rs.7500/- to the complainant as compensation.  The complainant will be entitled for  cost of Rs.2500/-.  The amounts are to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment, failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 15% from 27.1.11, the date of this order.  The appeal is allowed in part as above. 

                    The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with a copy of this order.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER