BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 695 of 2013 against CC 108/2011, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
1) Abishek Ganguly
Area Manager
Action Construction Equipment Ltd.
Sales & Service, H.NO. 5-4-187/2
1st Floor, Adjacent to TVS
Sundaram Motors,
Secunderabad-500 003.
2) The Regional Manager
Action Construction Equipment Ltd.
H.No. 39-33-95/1/1,
Madhava Dhara, VUDA Layout
Visakapatnam.
3) The Manager
Action Construction Equipment Ltd.
1-A, 5th Floor, TDI Center
Jasola, New Delhi. *** Appellants/
Ops 2 to 4
And
1) Kothapally Ravinder Rao
S/o. Rajeshwar Rao’
H.No. 4-5-4/2,
Annapurna Colony
Jyothi Nagar
NTPC, Karimnagar *** Respondent/
Complainant
2) M/s. Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises
Plot No. 8-6-237/5, Rajiv Autonagar
Near By-pass Road
Karimnagar. *** Respondent/
O.P. No. 1
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates
Counsel for the Respondents: Served
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order: 26/02/2014.
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) This appeal is directed against the orders in CC 108/2011 dt. 1.3.2013 on the file of Dist. Forum, Karimnagar whereby the Dist. Forum allowed the said complaint and directed the Opposite Parties i.e., the appellants herein to replace the real axle with standard specifications approved by the Government and to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for loss of income and Rs. 10,000/- per month as the vehicle was kept idle with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing the complaint i.e., 28.6.2011 and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
2) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/Ops 2 to 4. The respondents though served with notices have not chosen to put in their appearance either in person or through advocate.
3) Heard. In our considered view, it is not necessary for us to go into the facts of the case for the reason that the Dist. Forum has decided the said CC without hearing the appellants herein/Ops 2 to 4. Of course, the Dist. Forum cannot be found fault with, as the appellants/Ops 2 to 4 intentionally have not chosen to put in their appearance nor did they file their written version. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Ops 2 to 4 are not served with any notice. We are unable to appreciate the said contention. If really, the appellants herein/Ops 2 to 4 are not served with notices, the Dist. Forum would not have proceeded with the case. In fact, the Dist. Forum also at para-6 of its order clearly stated in the following manner:
“ Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 did not choose to file counter, and so were set- exparte.”
From that it can safely be inferred that the Opposite Parties 2 to 4 are served with notices but have not chosen to contest the matter. When the Ops 2 to 4 did not contest the matter, it is not as though, the Courts like Dist. Fora have to wait and in those circumstances, the Courts are always justified in passing ex-parte orders. As we are of the view, that any lis between the parties be decided on merits, we are of the opinion that an opportunity may be given to the appellants herein/Ops 2 to 4. But the said indulgence cannot be exercised without penalizing the appellants. In those circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the order impugned in this appeal is hereby set-aside, however, on payment of costs of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) to be paid to the complainant i.e., R1 herein. On ascertaining that the costs are paid, the Dist. Forum may take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
4) Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Dist. Forum for denovo enquiry.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
