Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.448/2014 & APPEAL NO.516/2014
JUDGMENT DATED:18.08.2016
PRESENT:
HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI - PRESIDENT
SHRI.V.V. JOSE - MEMBER
APPEAL NO.448/2014
Sunitha, W/o.Palaniswamy,
Nikhil Nivas, Devi Nagar,
Thathamangalam, Chittur Taluk, - Appellant
Palakkad-678 102.
(By Adv: Sri. Ramachandran .E)
Vs.
Abbas, Ply Centre, - Respondent
Panamkalam, Kalmandapam,
Palakkad.
(By Adv: Sri. Dhananjayan)
APPEAL NO.516/2014
Abbas, Ply Centre, - Appellant
Panamkalam, Kalmandapam,
Palakkad.
(By Adv: Sri. Dhananjayan)
Vs.
Sunitha, W/o.Palaniswamy, - Respondent
Nikhil Nivas, Devi Nagar,
Thathamangalam, Chittur Taluk,
Palakkad.
(By Adv: Sri. Ramachandran .E)
COMMON JUDGMENT
HON.JUSTICE.P.Q.BARKATHALI- PRESIDENT
Both these appeals arise out of an order passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad in CC 108/2013 dated August 11, 2014. Appeal 448/2014 is filed by the complainant, in so far as the Forum did not order the refund of the price of the plywood supplied by the opposite party. The appeal 516/14 is filed by the opposite party challenging the order of the Forum directing him to pay to the complainant Rs.1,25,000/- for repairing the damaged plywood and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs,5,000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by her as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:
The complainant purchased plywood and other accessories from the opposite party for Rs.1,34,575.36. The opposite party gave gave bill for only Rs.42,671.36 and did not give a bill for the balance amount of Rs.91,904/-. Rs.40,000/- was paid by the complainant by cheque. It was encashed by the opposite party on 11/5/2011. Plywood was delivered on 21/5/2011. The opposite party had given a guarantee for 3 years. Within a few months the plywood was damaged by termite attack . When the complainant demanded refund of amount opposite party refused. Therefore complainant claimed refund of Rs.1,34,575.36 being the price of plywood and Rs.1 lakh as compensation.
3. The opposite party is Mr.Abbas, Proprietor of M/s.Ply Centre, Palakkad. He in his version contented thus before the Forum. Plywood worth more than Rs.2 lakhs was delivered to the complainant. Rs.1,80,784/- is due from the complainant to the opposite party, for which he has filed a Civil Suit. The manufacturer is a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and she produced Ext.A1 to A4 and the opposite party was examined as DW1 before the Forum. The expert Commissioner was examined as CW1 and his report was marked as Ext.C1. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the plywood supplied by the opposite party is a defective one and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.1,25,000/- for repairing the damaged plywood along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.5,000/-. Opposite party has filed Appeal 516/2014 challenging the said order of the Forum. Complainant filed appeal 448/14 stating that the Forum should have ordered refund of the price of the plywood.
5. Heard both the counsels.
6. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the manufacturer is a necessary party to this proceedings?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the plywood?
- Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
7. The purchase of the plywood form the opposite party by the complainant for Rs.1,34,575.36 is admitted. The case of the complainant is
