KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.756/06
JUDGMENT DATED 18/02/2011
PRESENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
M/s.H & R Johnson (India) Ltd.,
Regd Office at “Windsor”,
7th Floor, CST Road, Kalina,
Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098
Branch at Door No.40/937, -- APPELLANT
P.T.Usha Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 011.
(By Adv.R.Padmaraj)
1. V.C.Thomas,
S/0 Sri.Chummar , Municipal Staff
Courters – 4, Behind Civil Station,
Palakkad.
2. The Proprietor, -- RESPONDENTS Cement House, 31/799
Market Road, Palakkad.
(R1 By Adv.P.Ramachandran Nair)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDIIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the second opposite party and respondents 1 & 2 were the complainant and the first opposite party in OP.67/05 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in effecting sale of premium quality ceramic tiles to the complainant for a sum of Rs.28,942.85. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. They contented that there was no defect for the ceramic tiles supplied to the complainant and the minor shade variation happened due to the defective laying of the tiles without following the laying instructions. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below, Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 documents were marked on the side of the parties to the complaint in OP.67/05. At the instance of the complainant, an expert commissioner was deputed and the report filed by the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. Both the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 filed proof affidavits in support of their respective pleadings. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 30th June 2006, directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 to rectify the defective ceramic tiles of premium quality at the cost of the opposite parties. The opposite parties were also made liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- in the event of the default to rectify the defective ceramic tiles of premium quality and to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till realization. They are also made liable to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. They were made jointly and severely liable to comply with the order passed by the forum below. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the second opposite party therein.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for respondents 1 and 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/second opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is further submitted that the Forum below did not permit the second opposite party (appellant) to cross examine the complainant and that the Forum below dismissed the application filed as IA.251/05 seeking an opportunity to cross examine the complaint. He also challenged the correctness of C1 commission report filed by the expert commissioner. It is submitted that the Forum below failed to consider the objection filed by the second opposite party to C1 commission report. Thus, the appellant/second opposite party prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
4. There is no dispute that the co
Back
