w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Manager, Mahalakshmi Silks, Kottayam v/s K.U. Chacko

    Appeal No. 662 of 2017

    Decided On, 02 November 2017

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
    By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair, Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh, Advocates. For the Respondent: -------



Judgment Text

S.S. Satheesachandran: President

Opposite party in C.C 267/16 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for short “District Forum”, Kottayam has filed this appeal challenging the Order of the Forum directing him to refund Rs.999/-, price of a

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hirt, and pay compensation of Rs.1000/- with costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant.2. Respondent/complainant alleging that a shirt purchased from the textiles of opposite party was found defective filed the complaint claiming compensation. Admittedly he had paid a sum of Rs.999/- for purchase of the shirt from the shop of opposite party. Among other contentions, opposite party contended that the manufacturer of the shirt was a necessary party to arrive at a fair decision in the case. However, it appears, the main contention pressed into service by opposite party was that the shirt became defective on account of its improper washing by complainant.3. On the materials placed and after hearing both sides, the forum coming to the conclusion that the case of complainant is genuine ordered the opposite party to refund the value of shirt with compensation and cost as stated supra.4. Learned counsel for appellant relying upon two decisions both rendered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission viz. Manager, UCO Bank V.Santhosh Kumar Ray (2014 NCJ 930(NC) and Hind Motors Indian Ltd and Anr v. Jodh Singh and Ors (2016(3) CPR 35 (NC) submitted that when a defect over a good is raised to claim compensation, producer of that good is a necessary party. Perusing the Order of the forum with reference to the submissions made by counsel relying on the decisions as aforesaid we are of the view that in a case of this nature where the claim is restricted to a meagre amount and more so where compensation claim is related to purchase of a shirt from a textile, impleadment of manufacturer or producer of that shop is not at all necessary, and, if such process is adopted, then the forum would be flagarantly flouting the interdiction placed for disposing a complaint expeditiously with the statute fixing a time limit of three months. Defence of the nature canvassed by an opposite party to prolong and protract the proceedings of the complaint, no doubt, should not be entertained by the forum and we find no merit in the submission made by counsel that manufacturer of the shirt ought to have been made a party on the basis of contention canvanssed. The decisions relied by the counsel, we are of the view, have no applicability to the facts involved in the present case. Going through the Order passed by the forum we are satisfied that it is based on sound reasoning and does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever.Appeal is dismissed as not admitted.
OR

Already A Member?

Also