Dtd.11.03.2024                                            A/897/2023

O R D E R

       BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.    This is an appeal filed U/s.41 of CPA 2019 by Complainant.1 & 2/Appellants aggrieved by the order dtd.20.03.2023 passed in CC/115/2022 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban. (Parties to the appeal henceforth are referred to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission).

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels.

3. Learned counsel for Complainant.1 & 2 submits District Commission failed to appreciate copy of first estimation dtd.07.08.2021 and copy of the detailed assessment report and to substantiate his contention brought to the notice of the Commission that in paragraph 12 District Commission held “The assessment of the expert report is necessary for proper clarification and assessment regarding project work undertaken by the OP, even though the Complainant has filed estimation report of the project work and the assessment report of the OP, but failed to file the estimation report to explain the alleged work done by the OP” is nothing but contradicting to each other which cannot be appreciated, viewed from any angle, since the very object of CPA 2019 is to provide for protection of the interest of consumers. However, the District Commission ignored the object of the law and dismissed the complaint raised by Complainant.1 & 2 as consumers against OP who is service provider.
4. Learned counsel for OP/Respondent submits that the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint for the reasons recorded in para 12 of the impugned order. It is to be taken notice of the fact, OP failed to participate in the complaint proceedings itself. In fact OP was placed exparte. In such circumstances, such contention is not available for him.

5. Learned counsel for Appellant rightly submits, though OP/service provider is placed exparte, District Commission instead of accepting the materials placed on record by Complainant.1 & 2, wrongly dismissed the complaint for want of experts evidence to establish work done by OP. In our view, when OP is placed exparte and when Complainant.1 & 2 have placed as many as 14 documents commencing from first estimation dtd.07.08.2021, receipts of money paid by the Complainant, copies of different quotations, copy of printouts of whatsapp, copies of photographs, emails, copy of screen shot of whatsapp message, copy of detailed assessment report, copy of invoice raised by another Architect’s concern and legal notice coupled with certificate U/s.65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, wrongly recorded findings on point.1 and as a result committed grave error in dismissing the complaint, which in our view is liable to be set aside. Hence proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently set aside the order dtd.20.03.2023 passed in CC/115/2022 on the file of 4^th Addl., District Commission, Bengaluru urban district and as a result remanded back the matter with a direction to readmit the complaint and afford opportunity to both parties to place additional materials on record and decide the complaint in accordance with law as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of this order.

6. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

                               Judicial Member               

*NS*