BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 1205 of 2013 against CC 250 of 2010, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad
Between:
CH. Surender Raju
S/o. CH. Narasimha Raju
R/o. 3, Ground Floor
Tirumala Apartments
D.No. 2-3-681/A/2
Tirumala Nagar, Amberpet
Hyderabad. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
AND
1) Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Raghupathi Reddy
Flat No. 401, Kishan Mansion
Near Vinayak Temple
Barkatpura, Hyderabad.
2) L. Srinivas,
Flat No. 2 Tirumala Apartments
D.No. 2-3-681/A/2
Tirumala Nagar
Amberpet, Hyderabad
3) G. Sadasiva Rao
AM(T), Staff Training College
APSRTC, Warangal Dist.
4) L. Rajan, S/o. Manohar Rao
3-4-137G/F1,
Opp: Ashok Kumar Hospital
Barkatpura, Hyderabad
5) Smt. E. Ruma
W/o. E. Surender Reddy
Flat No. 302, Street No. 8
Brilliant Grammar School
Lingampally, Near Narayanaguda Bridge
Hyderabad. *** Respondent/
Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. Eswara Prasad
Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Jagathpal Reddy (R1& R2)
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R. L. NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
Oral Order : 08/07/2014
(Per Hon’ble Justice Gopala Krishna Tamada, President)
***
1) The complainant Mr. CH. Surender Reddy approached this Commission and filed the present appeal assailing the order dt. 7.11.2012 made in CC 250/2010 on the file of Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad whereby his complaint was dismissed.
2) It may not be necessary to refer to various facts that were canvassed before the Dist. Forum. During the course of hearing of said CC No. 250/2010 counsel for the complainant filed an application IA No. 256/2010 u/s. 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. Along with said application, learned counsel for the appellant states that he filed certain documents also to be taken into consideration. However, the Dist. Forum vide its order dt. 7.3.2011 pronounced the order dismissing the said application and the said order reads as under:
“The petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to establish his case by way of filing the evidence of expert including a Civil Engineer. No costs. ”
While dismissing the said application, though the Dist. Forum clearly observed that the petitioner/complainant is at liberty to establish his case by filing evidence and though said evidence has already been filed, the Dist. Forum has not considered the said documents and passed the impugned order. In the light of saidsubmission, this Commission looked into the record that was transmitted to this Commission from the Dist. Forum. From a perusal of the said documents on record, which was transmitted to this Commission by the Dist. Forum, it is clear that there are certain documents, however they were not taken into consideration while deciding the issues. Of course, it is true that the Dist. Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it has no
jurisdiction for the reason that it is a matter to be decided by a competent Civil Court. In our considered view, may be, it is true, still it should have looked into all the documents that were filed before the Dist. Forum by the complainant before coming to a conclusion. As these documents were not taken into consideration and according to the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that these are very crucial, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires remand.
3) Accordingly, this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum and the matter is remanded back to Dist. Forum. The Dist. Forum shalltake up the matter afresh by looking into the documents which were filed by the complainant along with IA No. 256/2010 before it. It is made clear that the Dist. Forum need not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Commission while disposing of this appeal. As this C.C. is pertaining to the year 2010, the Dist. Forum shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
*pnr
UP LOAD – O.K.
