KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 272/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 02.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 348/2022 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Rajasekharan S., Thekkevila Veedu, Pandiyodu, Erumba, Aruvikkara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 564.

                           (Party in person)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. The Proprietor, Sreesathya Home Appliances, Keltron Junction, Karakulam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Manager, M/s Willet T.V. Company, SBT Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No. 26/14/2, MIE Freehold Hasampur, Bahadurgarh-124 507, Hariyana.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by Sri. Rajasekharan, the party in person.

          2.  The appellant had filed a Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (referred as District Commission in short) as C.C. No. 348 of 2022.  The District Commission had allowed the complaint in terms of a compromise arrived at in the mediation.  The dispute is in respect of the defects of a TV set purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.  In view of the settlement the opposite party had agreed to deliver a new Impex Onix UB Smart TV with 1 year warranty if the complainant  pays an additional amount of Rs. 2000/-.  A memo signed by both parties was filed which was recorded and the complaint was allowed.  But the opposite party violated the terms and conditions in the compromise and a different TV was supplied to the complainant.

          3.  Being aggrieved by the above conduct of the opposite party the complainant came up in appeal.

 4. The registry ought not to have numbered the appeal as no appeal will lie against an order passed on the basis of a settlement in mediation. Therefore this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5.  Before concluding the matter it is found expedient in the interest of Justice to remind the appellant that he has to approach the District Commission with respect to the satisfaction of the order passed on the basis of a compromise.  The legal position in this regard is well settled by our Hon’ble High Court in a ruling reported in 2016 (4) KHC 34 in Ramesh Kumar versus M/s Pukkalakkat Properties Private Limited and another.  As per Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the competent authority to resolve the dispute in respect of the execution of the order is the District Commission.   So the appellant is at liberty to approach the District Commission for redressal of his grievance in respect of the order passed.

In view of the observation made above, the appeal is dismissed.

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb