KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.381/2018

JUDGEMENT DATED :13.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.140/2014on the file of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. M. Unnikrishnan)

JUDGEMENT

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

          The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C.No.140/2014 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in connection with the purchase of five sewing machines for starting a readymade garment unit for her livelihood.

          3.       The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Thereafter, the complainant filed proof affidavit.  The complainant also produced some documents.  An expert was also appointed by the District Commission on the application of the complainant to ascertain the defects in the machines.   The expert also filed a report.  However, the District Commission did not incline to mark any of the documents produced by the complainant including the report of the expert.  The District Commission, on the other hand, permitted the opposite party to mark their documents as Exhibits D1 to D5.  The affidavit produced by the opposite party was also accepted and the District Commission passed the order impugned dismissing the complaint. 

4.       The appellant is present in person.

5.       Heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6.       It is seen from the records that after filing the proof affidavit, the complainant did not appear before the District Commission.  Thereafter, the opposite party filed proof affidavit with five documents, which were marked by the District Commission as Exhibits D1 to D5.  The report filed by the expert was available before the District Commission.  However, the said report was also not marked by the District Commission. 

7.       The District Commission ought to have taken into consideration that the complainant was appearing in person.  It is not reflected anywhere in the order impugned that the District Commission had issued notice to the complainant when the complainant was found absent after filing the proof affidavit.  The complainant had already filed proof affidavit and documents.  If the District Commission had the view that there was no justification for the absence of the complainant, the District Commission ought to have either dismissed the complaint for default or decide the case on merits, as provided under section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the basis of the evidence on record.  For deciding the case on merits, there should be at least some evidence from the side of the complainant.  In other words, the question of deciding the case on merits arises only in cases where the complainant adduces at least some evidence and thereafter he/she remains absent.  In the case on hand, no evidence was adduced by the complainant.  Therefore, when the District Commission noticed that the complainant was continuously absent, the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint for default rather than permitting the opposite party to adduce evidence.  Instead of doing that, the District Commission proceeded with the complaint permitting the opposite party to adduce evidence and on the basis of the said evidence, the District Commission dismissed the complaint on merits.

8.       Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the complainant to contest the matter on merits.  For the said reason, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned. 

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Commission with a direction to the District Commission to dispose of the complaint, in accordance with law, untrammelled by any of the observations in the order impugned, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within six months from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the District Commission, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.  The parties shall appear before the District Commission on 19.03.2025 without further notice.   

SL