KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 217/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 11/2020 of CDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

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

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Sundar Prabhu, Proprietor, M/s Zigma Machinery & Equipments Solutions, SF No. 25/1, Veerakeralam Bus Stop, Near Reanco Mills, Thondamuthur Road, Coimbatore-641 007.

                     (By Adv. T.C. Narayanan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shivaprasad K., Proprietor, M/s Laxmi Foods, Kodijali, Kodlamogaru Post, Manjeshwara Taluk, Kasaragod-671 323.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No. 11/2020 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short).  Respondent is the complainant. The District Commission allowed the complaint in favour of the complainant.  The opposite party was ex-parte before the District Commission.  Against the impugned order the opposite party has filed this appeal. 

2.  Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

Complainant started a unit of producing chakkuli under the Prime Minister’s Employment Guarantee Program.  He approached the opposite party for supply of necessary machinery.  Opposite party sent quotation for Rs. 3,56,000/-.  Complainant paid Rs.1,75,000/- on 08/05/2018 and Rs. 2,45,000/- on 30/07/2018 by direct credit to the account of the opposite party.  Machinery was supplied, installed and the unit started working.  But within one month the machinery stopped working.  Motors are found second hand and sub- standard.  It was duly informed to the opposite party.  But his phone was always switched off.  It was found that price of machinery is only Rs. 1,77,000/- as per invoice uploaded for G.S.T registration by the opposite party.  Thus there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Complainant sent notice dated 26/11/2019, but the opposite party refused to receive the notice despite service of information.  Therefore, complainant sought refund of the price paid and compensation from Opposite Party.

           3.   Notice of complaint was sent by the District Commission to the address of Opposite Party.  Intimation was served to the Opposite Party as endorsed on the Postal article by postal authorities.  Intimation was served on 29/01/2020.  Notice returned unclaimed on 12/02/2020.  Name of the Opposite Party was called absent.  Opposite party was treated as ex-parte and the case was posted to 13/03/2020 for complainant’s evidence.  On 13/03/2020 Opposite Party was absent.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A8documents.

          4.  In this case the District Commission found that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party.  The complainant had paid Rs. 4,20,000/- towards the price of the machinery which worked for just one month.  The complainant had informed the matter to the opposite party, but there was no response from his side.  The complainant even sent repeated notices to the opposite party, but he refused to accept the same.  Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission.  The notice issued from the District Commission was not accepted by the opposite party.  Intimation has been given to the opposite party, but the notice returned with the endorsement ‘unclaimed’.   So the District Commission declared the opposite party ex-parte.  The affidavit and documents filed by the complainant remained unchallenged.   In the absence of rebuttal evidence and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party.  Therefore the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- towards the value of the machinery and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs to the complainant.  After the payment the opposite party has the right to take the machinery from the complainant. 

5.  In the appeal the appellant stated that the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence to show that the machinery supplied suffered from any defects.  The appellant argued that he did not get the advocate notice sent by the respondent and the notice issued from the District Commission.  Therefore, he is entitled to file version before the District Commission.  The District Commission has taken hasty steps to pass orders in this case.  According to the appellant all these are illegal and against law. 

          6.  We verified that the address shown in the appeal and the complaint are same.  But the notices sent to the opposite party were not accepted by him.  We find that the appellant wilfully avoided the notices to evade from the liability. 

7.  The argument of the appellant is not sustainable.  The evidence on record would establish that the machinery became defective within its warranty period.  The opposite party never turned up to enquire about the functioning of the machinery after its sale despite the request of the complainant through the notice. It is the duty of the appellant for the after-sales service of machinery.  In view of the evidence on record there is no need for expert opinion since the opposite party has not challenged the evidence of the complainant.

8.  There is convincing evidence let in by the complainant that the machinery supplied became defective within one month.   The appellant had refused to respond to the notices issued by the complainant and the District Commission.  The appellant had deliberately evaded the notices.  On consideration of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the findings of the District Commission are correct and the order passed by the District Commission is reasonable.  The compensation awarded is reasonable and hence there is no need to modify any part of the order.  Hence, we confirm the order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No.11/2020 dated 08.07.2020. 

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The respondent has the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant before this Commission and the District Commission on proper application.  The appellant shall pay the balance amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.  No order of costs. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                                                                                BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                 RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb