KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION 18/2010 ORDER DATED 14.5.2010 PRESENT SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER PSN Automobiles Pvt.Ltd 35/189 National Highway Palarivattom, Kochi-25. -- REV.PETITIONER (By Adv.P.Sanjay) Vs. 1. Eicher Motors Pvt.Ltd. 102, Industrial Area No.1, -- RESPONDENTS Dist.Dhar (M.P) Pithampur. 2. C.P..Ajayaghosh, “Swathikrishna’ Hill palace P.O, Thripunithura. ORDER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER This petition is filed challenging the order dated 3.3.2010 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam on IA.587/09 in CC.397/07. This Commission was pleased to hear the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on this matter. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present revision petition. He submitted that the revision petitioner did not get the opportunity to file objection to the expert report and so serious prejudice will caused to the revision petitioner/second opposite party by disallowing the prayer for receiving their objection. 2. On perusal of the impugned order passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in IA.587/09 would make it clear that the revision petitioner/second opposite party was negligent in filing objection to the expert report. It is to be noted that the expert filed the report before the Forum below on 15.7.09 and there after the complaint in CC.397/07 was posted for filing objection to expert report. Thereby the case was posted on 30.7.09, 8.9.09, 13.10.09, 23.10.09 and finally on 30.10.09. But the revision petitioner could not avail those opportunities and they failed to file the objection to the expert report. The Forum below had no other course but to proceed with the evidence in the matter. So, the impugned order passed by the forum below disallowing the IA.587/09 can only be upheld. The revision petitioner/second opposite party has to suffer the consequence of their negligence and laches. It is also to be noted that the first opposite party/manufacturer was also on the party array. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the first opposite party/manufacturer had also failed to file objection to the expert report. The opposite parties were negligent in filing objection to the expert report. So, the present revision deserves dismissal. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER | 
