Kerala

StateCommission

A/707/2017

FORTUNE AGRI TECH - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOY THOMAS - Opp.Party(s)

T H LAWRENCE

24 Jul 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,  SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 707/2017

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 24.07.2019  

 

(Against the order in CC No.194/2016 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram
order dated 28.02.2017)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN	:	PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT  R.	:	MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANT:

 

Proprietor, M/s Fortune Agri Tech, Maruthumkuzhi, Kanjirampara P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 030.

 

(by Adv. T.H. Lawrence)

 

VS

 

RESPONDENT:

 

Joy Thomas, Thekkanath House, Kunnakav P.O., Parakkalmukku, Malappuram Dist.

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 

 

SRI. RANJIT  R.          :        MEMBER

 

 

The 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.194/2016 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram, in short, the District Forum has filed the appeal against an exparte order passed against the appellant directing them to pay Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) the amount paid by the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) as compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as cost.

According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party on receiving Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) has constructed poly house on the terrace of his house for cultivating vegetables, using low quality materials and that the construction work was not properly done, thereby they committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  He has filed the complaint before the Forum for directing the opposite party to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand) along with compensation and cost.

We heard the counsel for the appellant.  Even though notice was served on the respondent, he remained absent.  Perused the records.

The learned counsel contended that the 1^st opposite party did not receive any notice from the District Forum and he had no knowledge of any case filed against him by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

No acknowledgement card proving the service of notice to the 1^st opposite party is seen incorporated along with Lower Court’s records.  Perusal of the order shows that opposite party after accepting notice, remained absent and it resulted in passing an exparte order against them, accepting the case of the complainant relying on the affidavit filed and also the documents produced.  Nevertheless a decision on the issue involved has to be formulated after providing opportunity to both sides to lead evidence.  Hence we are inclined to grant the request of setting aside the order and to remand the case for fresh disposal.

Remission of the case, setting aside the order of the District Forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellant to compensate the injuries likely to be caused by the delay in culmination of the proceedings to the complainant.  The appellant/1^st opposite party has to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost to the complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order and remission of the case.  1^st respondent/complainant can realise the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) ordered as cost from the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal, on filing proper application.  Balance amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is to be released to the appellant on filing application.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the appellant to file version and to adduce evidence, if any.  The District Forum shall dispose off the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

 

 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN	:	PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT R.	:	MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SL