Kerala

StateCommission

A/152/2018

INDUS MOTORS COMPANY PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P I NOUSHAD - Opp.Party(s)

V K DINESH KUMAR

21 Jun 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 152/18

 JUDGMENT DATED:21.06.2018

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                                             : MEMBER

1. The Managing Director,

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

Thevara, Ernakulam District,

Cochin-15.   

: APPELLANTS

2. The Branch Manager,

Indus Motor Company Private Ltd.,

Kayamkulam, Alappuzha District.                                                        

 

(By Adv: Sri. V.K. Dinesh Kumar)

 

            Vs.

P.I. Noushad, S/o K.M. Ibrahim,

Pattoliputhen veedu,

Edakulangara P.O,                                                             : RESPONDENT

Karunagappally, Kollam.

 

(By Adv: Sri. B.A. Krishnakumar)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

        Opposite parties in CC.219/16 of CDRF, Kollam have filed this appeal challenging the exparte order passed against them in the case directing to provide a new vehicle or pay Rs.10,98,942/- with 9% interest per annum from 18.7.2016 to the complainant with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The above appeal was preferred with a petition to condone delay of 332 days which, after enquiry, was allowed on terms.

2.     We heard the counsel on both sides.  Since the appeal is preferred against the exparte order we find that records of the case to examine the order passed on evidence let in is not called for.  Appellants, dealer and branch Manager, involved in the sale of motor vehicle to complainant after receiving notices from the Forum failed to appear and contest the proceedings.  Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that they had engaged a counsel to defend them in the proceedings, but, for reasons beyond their control, the counsel engaged failed to appear before the forum and that resulted in passing an exparte order against them.  We are not impressed with the submissions made.  However taking note that the order passed directs payment of substantial sum of more than Rs.10.lakhs or to provide a new vehicle, we are of the view that an opportunity shall to be extended to the opposite parties to contest the proceedings setting aside the exparte order, to advance the ends of justice.  To the extent possible, a decision on merits in any proceedings has to be appreciated.  But that cannot be considered as a licence to any of the party in a proceeding to avoid contest remaining absent.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the exparte order can be setaside subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the appellants to the complainant.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellants are prepared to pay the above cost ordered by the Commission.

3.     Sum remitted by the appellants for entertaining their appeal shall be released to the respondent/complainant on his application in lieu of the cost ordered as above.

4.     Setting aside the order impugned in the appeal, parties are directed to appear before the lower Forum on 7.9.2018, with direction to the Forum to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible but providing reasonable opportunities to both parties to lead evidence.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  :  PRESIDENT

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 152/18

 JUDGMENT DATED:21.06.2018

 

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH                                            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                                             : MEMBER

1. The Managing Director,

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

Thevara, Ernakulam District,

Cochin-15.   

: APPELLANTS

2. The Branch Manager,

Indus Motor Company Private Ltd.,

Kayamkulam, Alappuzha District.                                                        

 

(By Adv: Sri. V.K. Dinesh Kumar)

 

            Vs.

P.I. Noushad, S/o K.M. Ibrahim,

Pattoliputhen veedu,

Edakulangara P.O,                                                             : RESPONDENT

Karunagappally, Kollam.

 

(By Adv: Sri. B.A. Krishnakumar)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

 

        Opposite parties in CC.219/16 of CDRF, Kollam have filed this appeal challenging the exparte order passed against them in the case directing to provide a new vehicle or pay Rs.10,98,942/- with 9% interest per annum from 18.7.2016 to the complainant with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  The above appeal was preferred with a petition to condone delay of 332 days which, after enquiry, was allowed on terms.

2.     We heard the counsel on both sides.  Since the appeal is preferred against the exparte order we find that records of the case to examine the order passed on evidence let in is not called for.  Appellants, dealer and branch Manager, involved in the sale of motor vehicle to complainant after receiving notices from the Forum failed to appear and contest the proceedings.  Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that they had engaged a counsel to defend them in the proceedings, but, for reasons beyond their control, the counsel engaged failed to appear before the forum and that resulted in passing an exparte order against them.  We are not impressed with the submissions made.  However taking note that the order passed directs payment of substantial sum of more than Rs.10.lakhs or to provide a new vehicle, we are of the view that an opportunity shall to be extended to the opposite parties to contest the proceedings setting aside the exparte order, to advance the ends of justice.  To the extent possible, a decision on merits in any proceedings has to be appreciated.  But that cannot be considered as a licence to any of the party in a proceeding to avoid contest remaining absent.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case we are of the view that the exparte order can be setaside subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the appellants to the complainant.  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellants are prepared to pay the above cost ordered by the Commission.

3.     Sum remitted by the appellants for entertaining their appeal shall be released to the respondent/complainant on his application in lieu of the cost ordered as above.

4.     Setting aside the order impugned in the appeal, parties are directed to appear before the lower Forum on 7.9.2018, with direction to the Forum to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible but providing reasonable opportunities to both parties to lead evidence.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  :  PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

VL.