State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shafi M S vs R Ajayan on 31 December, 2015
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM First Appeal No. A/15/425 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/03/2015 in Case No. CC/379/2014 of District Thiruvananthapuram) 1. SHAFI M S MITHR, THAMPANOOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. R AJAYAN THUSHARA 1/50, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: ORDER THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL NO- 425/2015 JUDGMENT DATED. 31/12/2015 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No. 379/2014,CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram ) PRESENT:- SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER SRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANT: Shafi M.S, Mithr, Thampanoor, (By Adv. Samchandra Bose .L.) V/S RESPONDENT: R. Ajayan, Thushara 1/50, Ulloor, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order passed in CC. No. 379/2014 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram wherein the Forum Below directed the opposite party to reimburse Rs. 16,000/-and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards cost.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant placed an order for 2 hydraulic chairs and paid Rs. 20,000/- as advance to the opposite party .
(2)The complainant is conducting a beauty parlour for his livelihood. The opposite party provided one hydraulic chair and while on use it is found that the hydraulic chair is of poor quality and is not working properly. The quality of the chair was very poor and this was informed to the opposite party and requested to change the chair several times. The opposite party was avoiding the complainant. Due to the repeated requests the opposite party returned Rs. 4,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party had not replaced the chair with good quality one and hence this complaint.
3. Though notice was issued to the opposite party the notice returned with the endorsement "no such addressee" and the Forum Below declared the notice deemed to be served and the opposite party was set exparte.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and produced Exbt. P1 to substantiate his case. The Forum Below came to the finding that as the evidence remained uncontroverted, allowed the complaint and ordered to realize Rs. 16,000/- from the opposite party.
5. The counsel for the appellant came up in appeal and argued that the appellant is running a shop as 'Mithr' Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram whereas the notice issued from the District Forum was in incorrect address as 'Mithra', the complete beauty gallery , Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram. It is admitted that the appellant is doing business in the same address and argued that the notice was not affixed in front of the shop. Exbt.P1 is only an invoice but not a cash bill. The sale of the hydraulic chair was also denied by the appellant. There is no other evidence to show that the respondent (3) purchased the chair from the appellant. Hence the appeal is to be allowed and to set aside the order passed by the Forum Below.
6. The respondent appeared in person and argued the case in detail and asserted that the appellant is the Proprietor of M/s Mithr and is conducting the business of hydraulic chairs. The cash memo produced before the Forum Below was issued by the opposite party towards advance for 2 hydraulic chairs. On finding that the chair provided was not in good condition the complainant approached the appellant to take back the chair and to return the money. The respondent demanded back for an amount of Rs. 16,000/- only as the appellant had already returned Rs. 4,000/- in person. The respondent prayed for the balance amount of Rs. 16,000/- before the Forum Below which was allowed in favour of the respondent.
7. We have heard both parties in detail and we are of the view that the appellant is having no case that he is not conducting the business of hydraulic chairs. The only contention is with regard to the name of the shop for 'Mithr' instead of ' Mithra'. From the evidence produced as Exbt. P1 it is a cash Memo paid as advance for 2 chairs. The appellant's address given in the appeal memorandum is Proprietor, 'Mithr', the complete beauty parlour, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram and we have to infer that notice issued to the opposite party from the District Forum was returned by the appellant on flimsy grounds in order to evade from the process of District Forum. The appellant came up in appeal with the same address and we have nothing to (4) disbelieve the allegations made by the respondent. Hence we find that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Forum Below.
In the result, appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1000/- .
The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the respondent is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% from the appellant / opposite party.
A. RADHA : MEMBER K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER Sh/- [HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI] PRESIDENT [ SRI. V. V. JOSE] MEMBER