KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 501/2016
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.02.2019
(Against the order in C.C. 743/2014 of CDRF, Ernakulam)
PRESENT :
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Spice Jet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122 016.
- M/s Spice Jet Ltd., Domestic Terminal, Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery P.O, Pin-683 585.
- Nodal Officer, M/s Spice Jet Ltd., Domestic Terminal, Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery P.O, Pin-683 585.
(By Adv. Baby Abraham)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sijumon P.N, Pazhayedath House, Palluruthy Desom, Palluruthy P.O-682 006 represented by Power of Attorney Dharsak V.P. Veliparabil House, Palluruthy P.O-682 005 Rameswaram Village, Kochi, Ernakulam.
(By Adv. Saji P. Joseph)
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
Opposite parties in C.C. No. 743/2014 of the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam have filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 24,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant/respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order this appeal is preferred by the appellants.
2. Complainant is the respondent in this appeal. Case of the complainant, in short, is that he had purchased a Samsung 3D LED TV from the Lulu Hyper Market, Dubai for an amount of Rs. 35,184/- on 03.03.2014. Complainant travelled in the opposite party Airlines on 12.03.2014 and arrived at Nedumbassery on 13.03.2014. Complainant had booked the T.V as a luggage endorsed in the passport and the TV was carried as a baggage in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Airlines. A sticker showing ‘fragile’ was attached on the baggage so as to handle the same with the care and safety in order to avoid any damage on the article. The opposite parties had assured that articles would be protected with the insurance. Even the complainant had taken all necessary precautions to get the article protected from mishandling and negligence of the workers. On arrival it was found that the cover of the TV set was torn and the screen of the TV set broken. The officer concerned of the opposite party has physically assessed the damage and they were convinced about it. The complainant alleged that the damage was caused due to willful misconduct of the opposite parties. The complainant is therefore entitled to replace or compensate the article. Hence the complaint.
The opposite parties accepted the notice of the forum, but not turned up to contest the case and the opposite parties remained ex-parte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A13 marked from his side. The forum below found that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and allowed the complaint.
The appellant argued that the order of the forum is not on merits and without appreciating the facts of the case. The appellants stated the reason for non-appearance in the forum is that on receipt of the notice the appellants authorized their staff named Abdul Razak to appear and contest the complaint before the forum. But he misguided the opposite parties that he was contesting the complaint before the forum. But he did not contest the matter and subsequently resigned and left the office which resulted in the impugned ex-parte order. We do not find that it is a genuine reason. But for the interest of justice we consider that the order passed by the district forum is to be set aside, giving opportunity to the appellants to contest the case and decide the case on merits. Hence we have not gone through the merits of the case.
Remission of the case, setting aside the order of the district forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellants to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the complainant. Appellant has to pay Rs. 15,000/- as cost to the respondent/complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.
Respondent/complainant is permitted to get release of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- ordered as cost from the amount deposited by the appellants at the time of institution of the appeal before this Commission, on proper application. Refund the balance amount to the appellants, on proper application.
In the result appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the district forum in C.C. No. 743/2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellants to file version and to adduce evidence, if any. The district forum shall dispose off the complaint as early as possible.
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
