KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 99/2020

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 136/2018 of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Biji B., Gowri Cable Vision, Willimangalam, Mundrothuruthu, residing at Gowri Mandiram, Willimangalam, Mundrothuruthu Village, Kollam.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. Threya J. Pillai)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, K.S.E.B. Head Office, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 

2. The Executive Engineer, KSEB, Office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kundara-691 501.

3. Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Office of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Division, Kundara. 

           (By Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair and Adv. N.G. Mahesh)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 136/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short “the District Commission”), who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission, dismissing the complaint for default.

2.  The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in connection with the Cable T.V. dispute.  During the pendency of the above complaint, the District Commission on 29.02.2020 dismissed the complaint.  The order of the District Commission is extracted hereinunder:

“Complainant absent represented by a Junior advocate and prays for time not allowed as the complainant is regularly absent when the case is listed for trial Advocate having vakalath for the complainant has also not applies for time to give evidence.  In the circumstances we are not inclined to adjourn the case to a future date.

In the result complaint stands dismissed for default.

No costs.”.

3.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          4.  Heard both sides.

          5.  It appears from the order impugned, as extracted above, that the District Commission had recorded that the advocate having the vakalath did not seek for adjournment.  Instead of that, a junior advocate had sought for adjournment.  That was the reason for the dismissal of the complaint.  It is settled law that an advocate cannot be omnipresent.  An advocate can be represented by any other advocate.  An advocate who appears before the Commission for and on behalf of another advocate will be considered as the advocate appearing for that party.  It appears that the junior advocate had prayed for time for adducing evidence.  However, that was turned down by the District Commission on the reason that the junior advocate was not having the vakalath. 

6.  Having gone through the order impugned, we are of the view that the order impugned appears to be perverse, incorrect, improper and illegal and consequently, the same cannot be sustained.  In the said circumstances, we set aside the same. 

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order dated 29.02.2020 in C.C. No. 136/2018 of the District Commission stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to take back the complaint in to its files and proceeded with the complaint, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.  The proceedings before the District Commission shall stand relegated to the stage prior to the dismissal of the complaint on 29.02.2020.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                             AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER     

jb