Kerala

StateCommission

A/225/2017

KAIRALY FORD - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

SUJA MADHAV

26 Jun 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 225/17

JUDGMENT DATED : 26.06.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.434/15

on the fie of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT

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

SRI.RANJIT.R                                   : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

M/s.Kairaly Ford, MGF Building, Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram 695 008

 

                                   (BY Adv.Sri.R.Suja Madhav)

 

                                        VS

RESPONDENT

                P.Unnikrishnan Nair, Dwaraka, Bhagavathynada.P.O

                Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 501

 

                              (BY Adv.Bimal.V.S)

JUDGMENT

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

               The opposite party in CC.No.434/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, in short, the district forum has filed the present appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs 1,83,823/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 29.11.2014 till realization and Rs 25,000/- towards compensation together with cost of Rs 2500/- to the complainant.

 

               2. The complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency of service on their part. He had claimed1,83,823/- alleged to have collected from him by the opposite party for doing repair works to his car. He had also claimed compensation and cost from the opposite party.

 

               3. The opposite party appeared before the district forum and even after several postings they did not filed version. Hence they were set exparte. Complainant field affidavit and the documents produced by him marked as Exts.P1 to P7. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the opposite party had preferred the present appeal.

 

                  4. The respondent appeared, heard both sides. Perused the records.

 

               5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant / opposite party had entrusted the matter with an advocate and they were under the belief that he will conduct the case properly. But there was failure on his part in informing the matter to the appellant / opposite party and hence they did not file version. Appellant came to know about the exparte order only when they received the copy of the order. The counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no willful default or latches on the part of the appellant / opposite party for not filing the version before the forum in time and an opportunity may be given to them to contest the matter, to file version and to adduce evidence in support of their contention. The counsel for the respondent / complainant submitted that even though sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant / opposite party they did not file version and there was latches on their part.

 

               6. On going through the proceeding paper and records of the district forum it is seen that on the request of the counsel for the opposite party / appellant the case was adjourned for filing verison on three occasions and the district forum allowed the adjournment on payment of cost of Rs 200/-. But the opposite party did not file version and they did not pay the cost as ordered. So it can be seen that there was latches on the part of the opposite party / appellant. However, considering the facts and circumstances and perusing the order of the district forum we consider that an opportunity has to be given to the opposite party to file version and to contest the case, to have a decision of the complainant on merits. For that purpose the order passed by the district forum is to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh disposal.

 

               6. Remission of the case setting aside the Order of the District forum can be allowed only on terms directing the appellant / opposite party to compensate the injuries those likely to be caused to the respondent / complainant by the delay in culmination of the proceedings. The appellant has to pay Rs 15,000/- as cost to the respondent / complainant as a condition precedent for setting aside the order to the district forum and for remission of the case.

 

               7.      The respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs 15,000/-ordered as cost from the amount of Rs 25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal, on filing proper application. Release the balance amount to the appellant on proper application.

 

               In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The order passed by the district forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the district forum for fresh disposal, after giving opportunity to the appellant / opposite party to file version and to adduce evidence. The district forum shall dispose the case as expeditiously as possible.

 

        T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 225/17

JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2019