Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/153

anoop - Complainant(s)

Versus

secretary vazhathope grama panchayat - Opp.Party(s)

AJITH S NAIR

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 153/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 06.04.2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.154/15 on the file of CDRF, Idukki, order dated : 15.10.2015)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 SMT. A. RADHA                                      : MEMBER

 

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          Sri. Anoop,

          S/o. Neelakandan,

          Krishnanath House, Edavaai,

          Keezharur – 695124.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Ajith S. Nair)

 

                                                          Vs.

 

 

RESPONDENT

 

          The Secretary,

          Vazhathope Grama Panchayath,

          Thadiyampadu,

          Idukki – 685602.

JUDGMENT

         

SHRI. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 154/2015 in the CDRF, Idukki.  The complainant the Vazhathope Panchayath purchased 220 pieces of CFL and 75 pieces of CFL of another model from the opposite party on 1.10.11 for lighting streets in the panchayath.  It is alleged in the complaint that as per agreement opposite party agreed to install the lights at different places inside the panchayath and assured maintenance for 5 years from the date of agreement.   Warranty was also provided. But within months of installation some lights got damaged and the opposite party despite repeated requests failed to repair the lights promptly. By January 2015 about 25 lights installed by the opposite party became functionless.   So alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached the consumer forum.   The appellant despite receipt of notice did not appear before the consumer forum.  Hence relying on the exparte evidence of the complainant, the consumer forum allowed the complaint.

          2.      The learned counsel for the appellant was heard at the time of admission.  The complainant had produced the agreement between the parties. Ext.P2 agreement and the deposition of complainants witness establish clear deficiency in service on the part of appellant as found by the consumer forum.  In the memorandum of appeal no convincing explanation is offered regarding the failure of the appellant to appear before the consumer forum. The claim is that the appellant had no personal interest but that is no reason to remain exparte and the evidence shows that he was very much interested in the contract.  It is further claimed that he was away at Gujarat.  Hence he could not contest the claim.  But it is admitted that notice was received at his residence but no attempt was made to appear before the consumer forum till the copy of order was communicated to him This shows that there is no sufficient answer for the appellant regarding the allegation of deficiency.  There is no serious issue to be heard and decided in the appeal.  Hence it is unnecessary to admit the appeal for hearing.  Hence the appeal is dismissed.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. RADHA      : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 153/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 06.04.2016

 

nb