State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Managing Director, Hi Tech ... vs Mathew Philip on 5 April, 2019
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/496/2017 ( Date of Filing : 01 Aug 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/320/2016 of District Idukki) 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HI TECH ENGINEERING AND ECO SOLUTIONS EDAYAR, PARAVOOR, ERANAKULAM ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MATHEW PHILIP VETTIKKAD ESTATE, KALIASANAD.P.O, ERANAKULAM ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH PRESIDING MEMBER SRI.RANJIT.R MEMBER SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 05 Apr 2019 Final Order / Judgement KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 496/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05.04.2019 (Against the Order in C.C. 320/2016 of CDRF, Idukki) PRESENT : SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER APPELLANT: The Managing Director, Hi tech Engineering and Eco Solution (P) Ltd., Edayar, Paravoor, Ernakulam. (By Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh) Vs. RESPONDENTS: Mathew Philip, Vettikkad Estate, Kaliasanad P.O, Nedukandam. (By Adv. K.M. Sanu) The Manager, Essar Steels, Kottappara P.O, Idukki. JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER The 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 320/2016 of the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki is the appellant and the 1st respondent is the complainant. The appellant is challenging the order of the forum directing the 1st opposite party to pay Rs. 99,000/- and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant.
2. Case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 91 roofing sheets of different sizes from the 1st opposite party for the purpose of renovation of his house at a price of Rs. 72,000/-. 1st opposite party had assured that the said sheets are rust free and suitable for the climate of high ranges. Rs. 20,000/- was spent as roofing charges. The balance sheets for roofing were purchased from 2nd opposite party. After three months of laying rust began to form in the edges and later it began to spread to all parts of the roof. The complainant stated that the roofs supplied by the 2nd opposite party were defect free. The matter was reported to the 1st opposite party and their representatives confirmed about the defects. But the 1st opposite party never cared to take any steps for settling the matter. The roofs totally rusted and faded. Complainant alleged that the 1st opposite party supplied duplicate materials of low quality. Complainant had spent Rs. 7,000/- as transportation charge and thus he totally spent Rs. 99,000/-. It is an unfair trade practice from the 1st opposite party to make believe the complainant that tiles are of superior quality and long durability. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite parties remained exparte. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 were marked on the side of complainant. On the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant, the forum below passed the impugned order. The appellant/1st opposite party argued that the order of the lower forum is against law facts and circumstances of the case. No proper notice was sent by the forum to the 1st opposite party. They didn't get any notice of this case. They further submitted that the forum failed to consider Sec. 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act with regard to the quality of roof sheets.
4. We heard both sides and perused the records. We are not impressed with the reason stated by the appellant for their non-appearance before lower forum. But for the interest of justice we consider that an opportunity has to be given to the appellant/1st opposite party to contest the case and decide the case on merits. Hence we do not go through the merits of the case.
5. Remission of the case setting aside the order of the district forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellant to compensate the injury likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the complainant. Appellant has to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the 1st respondent/complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.
6. Complainant/1st respondent is permitted to get release of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- ordered as cost from the amount deposited by the appellant at the time of institution of the appeal before this Commission, on proper application. Refund the balance amount to the appellant on proper application.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the district forum in C.C. No. 320/2016 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellant to file version and to adduce evidence, if any. The district forum shall dispose off the complaint as early as possible.
Send back the records to the district forum, forthwith.
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER RANJIT. R : MEMBER BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER jb [HON'BLE MR. SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SRI.RANJIT.R] MEMBER [ SMT.BEENAKUMARI.A] MEMBER