Kerala

StateCommission

RP/15/26

the chief executive officer vodafone cellular ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

mary - Opp.Party(s)

s reghukumar

08 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION. 26/2015

JUDGMENT DTD:08.03.2016

 (Against the order in CC No.62/15 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta, Dtd:27/04/2015)

PRESENT

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. A. RADHA                            :  MEMBER                            

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :  MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITIONERS

 

1. The Chief Executive Officer,

          Vodafone Cellular Ltd.,

          4^th Floor Angel Arcade,

          South Kalamassery,

          Cochin University Post,

          Ernakulam – 682022.

 

2. M/s. Vodafone Cellular Ltd.,

          Rgd. Office 1045/1046,

          Avinashi Road, Coibatore,

          Tamil Nadu.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Shyam Padman)

 

                                                                                                Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          Mary, Thottum Purath House,

          Sasimala P.O., Pulpally,

          Sulthan Bathery Taluk.

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI.K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Opposite parties in CC No. 62/2015 in the CDRF, Wayanad, Kelpetta are the revision petitioners.  The complainant revision counter petitioner approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the revision petitioners in not activating the offer for reducing call charges to Malaysia.  Notice was issued to the opposite parties after filing the complaint.  The complaint was posted for appearance for the revision petitioners and for filing version on 6.4.2015.  On that day the revision petitioners did not appear before the consumer forum.  Hence they were set exparte and the consumer forum posted the case for exparte evidence on 24.4.2015.  On the said day the revision petitioners appeared before the consumer forum through their counsel  and filed IA No. 146/15 to set aside the order setting them exparte.  The complainant opposed the application.  The consumer forum after hearing both parties dismissed the application holding that there was no convincing reason mentioned in the application and further the consumer forum has no power to pass such an order.  The petitioners opposite parties are challenging the said order in this revision petition.

          2.      The reason for the non appearance of the revision petitioners on 24.4.2015 before the consumer forum as mentioned in IA No.146/15 and in the memorandum of revision petition is that after receipt of notice the concerned staff of the revision petitioners inadvertently placed the file and omitted to inform their counsel about the matter.  It may be mentioned that on the next posting date itself the revision petitioners appeared before the consumer forum and filed necessary application.   Thus conduct shows that there is bonafides in the allegation in the application filed by the revision petitioners. It was because the consumer forum was not empowered to set aside its own orders,   the application was dismissed. Fairness requires that opportunity should be given to the revision petitioners to contest the consumer complaint on merits.  The consumer complaint is yet to be disposed of by the forum.  Hence we are inclined to allow the revision petition.

 In the result, the revision petition is allowed.  The order of CDRF, Wayanad in CC No.62/15 setting the revision petitioners exparte is set aside.  IA No.146/15 filed by the revision petitioners shall stand allowed.  Consequently the consumer forum shall afford opportunity to the revision petitioners to file version and proceed to dispose of the consumer complainant in accordance with law after recording evidence of both parties.  The revision petitioners shall appear before the consumer forum on 28.4.2016.  Since the complainant - revision counter petitioner did not appear before this Commission, the consumer forum shall give notice of date of posting to the complainant before proceeding with the case.

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. RADHA : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

REVISION PETITION. 26/2015

JUDGMENT DTD:08.03.2016

 

 

nb