At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE SHRI. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA MEMBER
For the Appearing Parties: C.K. Vidyasagar, Tom Joseph, Sony Sebastian, Advocates.
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the orders passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of O.P.257/04 & O.P.258/2004 (common order) dated 05.10.2006. The 2nd respondent in the O.P. is the appellant in Appeal No.813/2006 & 814/2006 under the order to direct the 2nd opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,42,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation in O.P.813/06 & 814/06 respectively and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant in failure the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default and the complainant will pay Rs.2000/- as cost of this petition to the 1st opposite party. In short both the above said O.Ps in connection with the purchase of indseal compound from the 4th respondent and used the same for rain guarding his 900 rubber trees. Further contended that after few days the rubber trees got damaged as ring shaped cracks developed on the trees resulting in total damage of the trees. Immediately on noticing the problem the 1st respondent took assistance of the officials of the Regional Office of the Rubber Board at a distance of 10 kms at Muvattupuzha, who on inspection of the plantation advised application of rubber coat on the affected portion and recommended 6 months holiday for the taping of the affected trees. It is the further allegation that the measures recommended by the Deputy Rubber Production Commissioner of the Rubber Board did not give sufficient improvement. On the said allegation the 1st respondent claimed a loss of 24,000 kgs of Rubber which he anticipated from the 900 rubber trees and claimed a damage to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- from the appellant as also the dealers under the respondents also the dealers (Respondent No.3 &4) and also from the Rubber Board alleging that the Board had carried advertisement in their official organ ?Rubber? Magazine.
2. The respondent filed their written version and denied all the allegations in the complaint and specifically denied that there is a manufacturing defect in the product and strongly resisted the massive claim pointing out that the same was highly excessive. It was pointed out of the component used for manufacturing the product was supplied by oil companies and any impurity in the said supply could have resulted in the deterioration of particular batch of the product paving way for the slight damage to the bark of some of the trees. The complainant sought the appointment of an expert to inspect the plantation. Accordingly a retired mycologist who was a former Officer in the Rubber Board conducted an inspection in the plantation in the petitioner and also in the plantation of the petitioner who is the complainant in O.P.257/04 and submitted a report stating that both plantations are to be clear felled and re-planted as the trees were likely to deteriorate or to perish over the years.
3. As an evidence of K.M.George the complainant examined as PW1 and other side DW1 to DW3 were examined and marked as Ext.P1 to P7 by the complainants and on the side of the opposite parties Ext.R1 to R8. The Commission report marked as Exts.C1 and C2.
4. The Forum below tried jointly both cases together and ordered that to incorporate the above impugned order in O.P.No.257/04 also.
5. Thus the impugned order was challenged by the appellants before this commission.
6. This Commission heard the Appeal No.813/2006 and 814/2006 together and disposed as following directions.
7. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing the learned counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and not accordance with the law and evidence. Hence it is not legally sustainable.
8. Heard both sides and on perusing the entire case bundles of the both cases and this commission is reaching in a conclusion that the order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and strictly according to the provisions of the law and evidence. An Ext.C1 and C2 expert commission report is sufficiently proved the allegations of the complaint. There is no doubt that the act of the 2nd opposite party is nothing but a deficiency i
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n service and unfair trade practice. This commission is seeing that the order passed by the Forum below is legally sustainable and there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. We uphold the order of the Forum below. In the result, these above appeals are dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. The points of the appeals are answered accordingly.