At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN PRESIDENT
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. T.S.P. MOOSATH JUDICIAL MEMBER
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R. RANJIT
By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. A. BEENAKUMARI
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN
For the Appellant: C.S. Rajmohan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R. Narayan, Advocate.
A. Beena Kumari, MemberThis is an appeal filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 21/2013 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) challenging the order dated 29.04.2017 directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,33,000/- as the value of the system, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.2. The case of the complainant/respondent was that he had purchased a Solar Max Home Lighting System SM 1100 from the opposite party for Rs. 1,33,000/- on 29.02.2004. It has a warranty period till 2014. Opposite party has undertaken to send a technical expert once in four months to inspect and check the system. In 2008 the module of the system became faulty and opposite party did not care to repair the same. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for refund of the price of the home lighting system and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-.3. The opposite party appeared before the Forum, but they did not file version. Hence they were set exparte. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to refund Rs. 1,33,000/-being the price of the equipment and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.4. In this case the appellant has not stated any sufficient reason for not contesting the case before the District Forum. They had accepted the notice and appeared before the Forum, but did not file version.5. The complainant had filed this case before the District Forum in the year 2013. This is the second time the opposite party is approaching this Commission for the very same relief. On 22.07.2013 the complaint had been allowed and thereafter the opposite party filed an appeal against that order as Appeal No. 106/2014. This Commission allowed that appeal and remanded the case for fresh disposal. Bu the opposite party has not care to attend the case properly. Again they were set ex-parte.6. This is the second appeal filed for remanding the case for fresh disposal and setting aside the order passed by the District Forum. The complainant has been suffering so much mental, physical and financial hardships in connection with this case for the last 8 years. The intention of the opposite party/appellant is only to harass the complainant. If the appellant had any bonafides they would have contested the case properly before the District Forum. The appellant/opposite party has not cared even to file their version for a long period of 8 years.In these circumstances, we find that there is no need to give any further chance to the appellant to contest the case. Hence we confirm the order passed by the District Forum and the appeal is dismissed.The re
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
spondent has the right to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant before this Commission and before the District Forum on proper application. The balance amount shall be paid by the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.