D.O.F:14/03/2022
D.O.O:29/07/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
RA-1/2022 in CC.No.284/2015
Dated this, the 29th day of July 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
- Mr. Rafeequ Rahman H.K : Review Petitioner/
S/o Mr.M.E Abdul Hakeem Maulvi : Opposite party No.2
R/at Ubaid Manzil, Pallikkal in CC No. 284/2015
Thalankara, Kasaragod – 671122
(Adv: Vinay.M. E)
And
1. Mr.Ahammed Kunhi.T.A Aged 60 years,
S/o Abdulrahiman Haji, : Respondent/Complainant
R/at Ashik Villa, Fort Road Opposite Party No. 1,3, & 4
Kasaragod in CC No. 284/2015
(Adv: Shrikanta Shetty.K)
2. M/s EURO GOLD
Door No. 16-2-T7 4/5 and 75/6,
Ground Floor, Kankanady,
Mangalore- 585 002
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
3. Mr. Mohammed Shafeeq,
S/o Mr.M.E Abdul Hakeem Maulvi
R/at Flat No.603
Classic Harmony,
Balikashrama Road, Kankanady
Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 002
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
4. Mohammed Sajjad,
S/o A.Ahmed,
‘Green View’ Post- Cheroor
Naimarmoola, Kasaragod. 671123
(Adv: K.Vinod Kumar )
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
This is an application for review filed by Opposite Party No:2 to review the order dated 30/04/2021 and permit the petitioner to contest the case on merits in the interest of justice.
The main complaint was filed by the 1st respondent seeking return of gold or to pay its value allowed by the commission as per order dated 30/04/2021. The contention of the petitioner herein is that he is the managing partner of respondent No:2 engaged in gold business. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the order is arbitrary against natural justice because petitioner never entrusted any lawyer to appear on his behalf in the above case. Therefore the order is illegal. The third respondent is only a partner. No authority to represent the firm, no notice was sent to the petitioner, Ext A3 and A5 would reveal that 3 notices are sent to the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext A6 to A8 reveals that the petitioner was not served with any notice but notice is acknowledged by the partner. He is not authorized. There is a mistake on the face of the record and hence sought review. Notice of appearance was issued to all the parties. Respondent filed a counter dated 04/05/2022 to the petition raising the contention that the final order was passed on merits after considering the merits and documents that the parties are properly represented. No sufficient reason to review. No ground to condone the delay. EP 53/2021 is initiated for execution and therefore petition may be dismissed.
a) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief claimed in the review petition?
The commission finds the order dated 30/04/2021 is passed after hearing the parties including the petitioner herein who is represented by a lawyer.
The petitioner here in is Opposite Party No:2 in the final order. The petitioner also filed a version denying the allegations. The specific case of Opposite Party No:1 and 2 is that they have been paying the monthly amount to the respondent No:1. There is no consumer dispute coming under consumer protection Act and therefore not liable to pay the amount. The consumer commission found that the complainant is entitled for benefits and accordingly allowed the case on merits allowing opportunity to all the parties to conduct the case. The commission finds that the petitioner is not able to show any mistake apparent on the face of the record or any convincing reasons to review the final order passed in the above case and therefore the review petition 01/2022 in cc 284/2015 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
