KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 417/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 02.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 251/2022 of CDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Manager, M/s Diya Motors, Near Town Limit, NH 208, Quilon Shenkottah Road, Kadappakada, Kollam-691 008.

2. The Manager, Hero Motor Corp Limited, The Grand Plaza, Plot No. 2, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunju, Phase-II, New Delhi-110 070.

(By Advs. K.S. Arun Das & Nithya S.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Sajithkumar S.S., S/o Sasidharan K.P., Sajith Bhavanam, Poovattoor West, Mavadi P.O., Kulakkada, Kollam-691 521.

2. The Manager, M/s Heera Motors, Authorized Representative of Dealer, H.S. Junction, Kulakkada, Kottarakkara, Kollam.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 251/2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission for short).  The 1^st respondent is the complainant and the 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd opposite party. 

          2.  The complainant has purchased a motor bike from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 69,560/- on 09.11.2021.  The complainant is a marketing executive.  He had purchased the vehicle for his professional use.   But before 500 kms of running, the vehicle showed some defects.  The complainant approached the opposite parties and they cured the defects.  But the defects still exist.  For that the complainant approached the District Commission for the redressal of his grievances. 

          3.  Though notices issued from the District Commission were accepted by the opposite parties 1 to 3, they didn’t appear before the District Commission.  Hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Forum allowed the complaint.  Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties 1 & 3 have filed this appeal.  Main contention raised by the appellants is that without expert report the District Commission allowed the complaint. As per the appellants the order passed by the District Commission is against law. 

4.  We have heard the counsel.  The appellants have no right to raise this contention before this Commission since they did not appear before the District Commission and not filed version.

5.  As discussed above, this is a complaint in which no version has been filed by the appellants despite receipt of notice from the District Commission.  Therefore in view of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 it is not possible for them to file a version now.  The main grievance of the appellants is that the District Commission has passed the impugned order without seeking expert opinion.  In this regard it is pertinent to note that the vehicle in question is in the custody of the appellants and under such a situation the burden is upon the appellants.  Basing upon this circumstance, the District Commission had passed the order.  We could not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission.  For the above reasons, there is no point in admitting the appeal. 

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.  The order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 251/2022 is confirmed. 

The appellants have the right to receive the statutory deposit made by them, on proper acknowledgement.  

      AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb                                                                     RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER