KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Revision petition No. 62/12

ORDER DATED 10.01.2013

PRESENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                          :  MEMBER

PETITIONERS

1.     L& T Finance Limited, L&T House,

     N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400 001

Rep. by its Chairman.

2.     L & T Finance Limited, Alappuzha Branch Office, West Cost

     Engineering Limited, South of Valia Chudukadu, Alappuzha – 3

                    (Rep. by Adv. M. Kuttappan Thazhassery & others)

                                                                                             Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.     Babu, Sarada Sadanam, Vadackal P.O., Vadackal Muri, Paravoor Village, Ambalappuzha Taluk,  Alappuzha – 688 003.

2.     Bibin, Thattasserri, Poonthoppu Ward, Avalookkunnu P.O., Alappuzha

3.      The Regionall Transport Officer, O/o the R.T.O.,  Alappuzha.

ORDER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA             :  HON. MEMBER

This Revision Petition preferred from the R.P 62/12 the Revision Petitioner preferred this revision from the order passed by the CDRF, Alappuzha in I.A. No. 144/12 in C.C. No. 219/12  This Revision petitioners 1 and 2, are the opposite parties of the above mentioned case. The respondants is the complaint request and 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties such as Sri. Bibin and the RTO Alappuzha respectively. The complainant who was seeking a relief that an autorikshaw which was taken possession by the opposite parties/ Revision Petitioners to return to him and also to direct to pay Rs. 1 lakh towards the compensation to the first  respondent and  for the further reliefs.  The Forum  below issued  notice to  the  opposite parties in the complaint.   The opposite parties are number 1 and 2.  The revision petitioners in this revision petition are directed to appear before the CDRF, Alappuzha  on  30.7.2012.   The Revision petitioners could not appear  before the Forum on 30.7.2012 because the notice which was sent to the Mumbai office of  Revision Petitioners and which was received by the Revision petitioners,  taken much  time to   appoint  a counsel and to discuss   the  matter with the company.  As the Revision petitioners did not appear before the Forum on 30.7.12 the Revision petitioners were declared ex-party and the case was posted to 9.8.2012 and on that day the revision petitioners filed a petition before the CDRF to set aside the ex-parte order passed against them by the Forum below

. But the CDRF, Alappuzha dismissed the I.A. No. 144/12  on the ground that the Forum below has no jurisdiction to set aside the exparte order in the light of the reason  due to the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the case was posted for ex-parte evidence on 30.9.2012.

          2.  On this day this revision petition came before this Commission for final hearing, the respondent/complainant is present as party in person.   This Commission heard in detail; both the counsel for the revision petitioners and the respondent/complainant is party in person.  It is seeing that the reason mentioned in the affidavit by the revision petitioner for non appearing before the Forum below is not a excusable reason.  It is the duty to accept the intimation  notice which issued to Mumbai Head office and also to the concerned office at Alappuzha.  The second opposite party is at Alappuzha and his notice was issued to Alappuzha address. The respondent/ complainant  submitted  their grievances  and  sympathetic      position which envisaged due to the act of the opposite parties.  This Commission satisfied about the grievances of the respondent/complainant.  But the CDRF and State Consumer Commission etc are fact finding bodies they cannot pass orders without considering the evidence of both sides it is highly necessary to give one more  opportunities to the Revision petitioners to adduce their both oral and documentary evidence. unless it will not meet the interest of justice.  But the act of the Revision petitioners are nothing but abuse the process of justice and to denied justice to the poor consumer complainant.

          In the result this revision petition is allowed on a terms of payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- which directed to pay to the complainant in the CDRF and  the order passed by the Forum below is set aside.  The revision petitioner/opposite parties are direct to file a petition along with the copy of this judgment before the Forum below and also the copy of the D.D. is alsodirected to be enclosed with the application and judgment along with the copy of the D.D  taken in favour of the complainant. This revision petition is disposed accordingly.  The office is directed to sent copy of this judgment as early as possible along with concerned document to the Forum below.

          The case was posted for orders on 10.1.2013.  It is sumoto advanced and pronounced the judgment on this day 31^st December 2012 for the interest of justice of the urgency of the case.  Suppose the Forum below will be disposed the matter in the absence of this revision petitioners which will be affected the natural justice of the Revision ‘Petitioners/opposite parties.

                                       M.K. ABDULLA SONA  :  HON. MEMBER

st