KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 146/2017

JUDGMENT DATED: 05.04.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 302/2015 of CDRF, Idukki)

PRESENT : 

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                 : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Manager, Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd., One way Junction, Market Road, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam.

2. The Manager, Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd, Adimaly, Devikulam, Idukki.

 (By Adv. Kishor Kumar. S.S)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

V.G. Soman, Vallattu House, Vellathooval P.O, Devikulam, Idukki-685 563.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

The appellants were the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in C.C. No. 302/2015 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Idukki and the respondent was the complainant.  The lower forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to return Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 2,500/- as cost.  Aggrieved by the Order appellants/opposite parties filed this appeal. 

2. Complainant’s case is that he had purchased a RITZ LDI vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party on 07.01.2014.  The terms of warranty were 24 months or 40000 km whichever occurs first, from the date of delivery.  On 10.08.2015 the complainant approached the 2^nd appellant for a complaint of sound from the front steering area and they referred the matter to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party repaired the stabilizer bar and its bush under warranty.  Again the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party with a complaint of an abnormal sound from the front left side and 1^st opposite party replaced the steering box by charging Rs. 20,000/-.  As per the averments of the complainant the opposite parties are bound to replace the part on free of cost since it is covered under warranty and is entitled to get back Rs. 20,000/- with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. 

3.  The opposite parties remained exparte.  Complainant has filed proof affidavit and four documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4.  On the basis of the evidences adduced by the complainant the forum below allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order. 

4.  The appellants stated that the order passed by the forum is without any evidence and only on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions.  It is against the facts of the case and there was not occurred any kind of unfair trade practice on their part.  They also raised another contention that the manufacturer of the vehicle was a necessary party in this case.  But they were not arrayed as party in the complaint.  The appellants prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order and remanding the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the appellants to file version and recording evidence.

5.  The respondent/complainant accepted notice of this appeal, but did not appear before this Commission. 

6.  From the argument of the appellants we find that the appellants had not got opportunity before the lower forum to contest the case.  In the appeal, the appellants have not stated any reason for their absence in the lower forum. But for the interest of justice we consider than an opportunity has to be given to the appellants/opposite parties to contest the case and decide the case on merits.  Hence we have not gone through the merits of the case.  

7.  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.  Appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 have to pay Rs. 13,000/- as cost to the respondent/complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case. 

8.  Respondent/complainant is permitted to get release of the amount of Rs. 13,000/- ordered as cost from the amount deposited by the appellants at the time of institution of the appeal before this Commission, on proper application. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the district forum in C.C. No. 302/2015 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.

 Send back the records to the district forum, forthwith.

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb