Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/33

FABER HEATKRAFT INDUSTRIES LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI GOPALAKRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

R.SRINATH

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.33/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/07/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.443/2012 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated, 14/08/2013)

 

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

Faber Heatkraft Industries Ltd.

(Franke Faber India Ltd), Survey No.37/1,

Pisoli Road, Pune, Maharashtra-411 060

represented by Siji Joseph.M

(Senior Executive Service)

 

(By Advs:   R. Srinath & Rajeesh K.G)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

1. Gopalakrishnan,

III/32, Swara Vihar, P.O. Poothole,

Thrissur-680 004.

 

2. Fridge House Retails (P) Ltd.,

Represented by Managing Director,

Prop: Natesan Brothers, 25/1646/1,

Kuruppam Road, Thrissur-680 001.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

        Appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.443/12 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, who preferred this appeal. 

2.  When this appeal came up for hearing it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the opposite party was exparte before the Forum Below.  It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased a Faber Heatkraft Gas Hob from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.13,500/- and it became defective.  It is the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party was not willing to cure the defect and could not rectify the defect.  The complaint is filed alleging manufacturing defect to the Gas Hob and prayed for replacement of a new Gas Hob and also for the loss suffered by the complainant.  Though notice was served on the opposite party they remained absent.  The Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to replace Gas Hob with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and this was challenged in appeal. 

3. It is submitted that the notice was received and the next posting before the Forum Below was on 24/01 and on that day there had no sitting and adjourned to 9/4/2013.  It is submitted that due to a mistake crept in noting in the next posting date as 9/5/2013 instead of 9/4/2013 there had no representation on the part of the appellant and on 9/4/2013 the District Forum ordered the opposite parties as exparte and posted for complainant’s evidence on 15/5/2013.  The appellant/opposite party sought time to file petition to        set-aside exparte order which was dismissed by the Forum Below.  The counsel for the appellant prayed that an opportunity is to be given to contest the case before the Forum Below as it was an inadvertent mistake in noting the posting date.  We find that there is a denial of opportunity to contest the case for the opposite party before the Forum Below.  Hence we are of the considered view that the appellant is to be given an opportunity to contest this case by filing version and also to adduce evidence in support of the case.

        In the result, appeal allowed and we set-aside the order passed by the Forum Below. The appellant is given an opportunity to contest the case before the Forum Below and the case is remanded to Forum Below.  The parties are to appear before the Forum Below on 01/09/2015.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.33/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.