IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No.2518 of 2007 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.3042/2007 Dated 18/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------ VEHICLE FACTORY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, JABALPUR-482009, MADYA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS ADDL.GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM, ADDL.CGSC RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTERS REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JANPATH BHAVAN (OLD INDIAN OIL BHAVAN), 5TH FLOOR, 'A' WING JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SISU VIHAR LANE,VAZHUTHACAUD SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695010. 3. CICILY KALLARACKAL, KOZHICHAL, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.P. JACOB, KOZHICHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.M.K.SUMOD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.2518 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT J. B. Koshy, J Third respondent in the writ petition purchased a vehicle from the writ petitioner. It had various defects. The Kerala Sate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the appellant to repair the vehicle. In appeal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by Ext.P10 order found that the vehicle is non-repairable and that there is no alternative but to direct the petitioner to refund the purchase price of the vehicle. National Commission also observed that the order is passed on the facts of the particular case. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle came to a W. A. No.2518 of 2007 -2- non-repairable condition solely because it was not kept in a good condition. But according to the third respondent, it had manufacturing defects and even after the order issued by the State Commission, they did not repair the vehicle and delay in repairing the vehicle caused the damage. The learned Single Judge considered the matter and found that the finding of the National Commission is just and reasonable and no valid grounds are made to interfere in the above order in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no blatant illegality and error of jurisdiction. 3. When this appeal was filed, we directed the parties to settle the matter. Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the appellant is prepared to pay Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the value of the W. A. No.2518 of 2007 -3- vehicle was Rs.3,15,000/- and when the interest is also included it will be a huge sum. However, later both sides agreed that the court can fix a reasonable amount so that the matter can be settled. 4. After considering the circumstances of this case, we fix Rs.2 lakhs as compensation to be paid in full settlement of the claim. Both sides are agreeable for the same. The said Rs.2 lakhs should be paid by the appellant to the third respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the above Rs.2 lakhs will be in full settlement of the claims of the third respondent. Ext.P10 order is set aside in view the settlement. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-