KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

             VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                          

REVISION NO.58/2009

                                    ORDER DATED 31.5.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                --  MEMBER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                         --  MEMBER

The Manager

Hilton Motors & Service,

Plot No.30, Mundakkal,                                         --  REV.PETITIONER

Industrial Development Plot,

H & C Compound, Kollam.

   (By Adv.Prabhu Vijayakumar)

                   Vs.

1.       Baji Somarajan,

Thittayil Kizhakkathil,

Eravipuram.P.O,

Kollam.

2.       The Divisional Manager,                               --  RESPONDENTS

United India Insurance Co.Ltd,

Divisional Office,

Beach Road, Kollam.

3.       The Manager,

          United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

          Karunagappally.    

                                                        ORDER

SMT.VALSALA SAANGADHARAN,MEMBER

          The revision petitioner is the third opposite party in CC 84/09 which was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties in repudiating the Insurance claim and also for getting the repaired vehicle from the custody of the third opposite party.   The first and second opposite parties are the insurer of the vehicle and third opposite party is the service center of the manufacturer of the vehicle.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed an IA for getting the vehicle released from the possession of the third opposite party.    The revision petitioner was the third respondent in the said IA.  But the third respondent failed to file counter to the said IA.  So, the Forum below passed an ex-parte interim order on the said IA. vide order dated 28.4.09.  Thereby, the third opposite party, the revision petitioner was directed to release the vehicle which was entrusted for effecting repairs.  But, the revision petitioner failed to comply with the said order.  The complainant also filed another IA to invoke the provisions under Section 25 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  On getting the copy of the order in the said IA.322/09 dated 8.10.09, the revision petitioner filed a petition on 12.10.09  to set aside the ex-pate order along with stay petition and  version which was not considered by the forum below.  On that IA, forum below ordered attachment of the property mentioned in the schedule to the said petition.  It is against the said order; the third opposite party filed this revision petition.

          2. It is the admitted fact that the revision petitioner who was the third opposite party failed to comply with the earlier order.   So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in ordering attachment of the property belonging to the revision petitioner, because of the non compliance of the earlier order passed by the CDRF, Kollam.  So, the revision petitioner is liable to face the consequences for their failure to comply with the order passed by the Forum below.

          3. The case of the revision petitioner is that he was not aware of the earlier IA.  There is no reason to doubt the view taken by the forum below regarding the absence of the third opposite party/revision petitioner and his failure to file counter to the said IA.  More over, the revision petitioner has not filed any revision or appeal  challenging the correctness of the order dated 28.4.09, passed by the Forum below in the earlier IA.  The aforesaid order passed on the said IA has become final.   It is for the non compliance of the earlier order that the Forum below passed order in the subsequent IA. under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          4. The revision petitioner has admitted the fact that the complainant has taken possession of the vehicle from the custody of the revision petitioner on the strength of the order passed by the Forum below.  So, the only course available to the revision petitioner is to move the forum below in the original complaint in CC.84/09 to get an order regarding the repair charges due to the revision petitioner.  The revision petitioner has also got the option to approach the Civil Court to get the repair charges recovered from the  complainant in CC.84/09.  At any rate, the present revision petition filed challenging the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be entertained because of the fact that the impugned order was passed for the non compliance of the earlier order passed by the Forum below.  There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Forum below.    So, the present revision petition deserves dismissal.

          In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

 VALSALA SARANGADHARAN--  MEMBER

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER

s/L