KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.73/2023

ORDER DATED: 22.01.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.501/2023 in C.C.No.127/2023 of DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Advs. Priya P. Pillai & Shiby P.P.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This Revision Petition is filed by the opposite party in C.C.No.127/2023 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (The District Commission for short).    

2.       The District Commission, as per the order in I.A.No.414/2023 had issued arrest warrant against the petitioner on 30.06.2023 for the alleged non compliance of the order dated 08.06.2023. 

3.       The petitioner had filed I.A.No.501/2023 for cancellation of the warrant issued against him which was also dismissed by the District Commission as per the order dated 08.08.2023 and he was directed to appear in person.

 4.      The dispute between the complainant and the petitioner was amicably settled and in view of the settlement, the petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) to the complainant in full satisfaction of his entire grievance and the complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaint and I.A.No.414/2023.Non-compliance of the order dated 08.06.2023 was neither willful nor deliberate.  A copy of the draft for Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) and the settlement agreement executed between the petitioner and the complainant are also enclosed along with the Revision Petition. The complainant himself had filed an application for permission to withdraw the complaint expressing no objection in cancelling the warrant issued against the Revision Petitioner.  The petitioner would seek for setting aside the order dated 30.06.2023 in I.A.No.414/2023.

5.       The complainant was served with notice, but remained absent.  The records from the District Commission were called for and perused. 

6.       Heard the counsel for the petitioner. On going through the records, it could be seen that on 08.06.2023 an exparte order was passed by the District Commission and a direction was issued to the opposite party to deliver the scooter to the complainant within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  On 30.06.2023 another order was passed in I.A.No.458/2023 with a modification in the earlier order directing the opposite party to deliver the scooter on payment of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only).

 7.      Later the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.501/2023 to recall the warrant, since the scooter was not delivered in compliance with the order of the District Commission as the matter stands settled out of court.  The District Commission took a view that as the opposite party failed to comply with the order of the District Commission his request for recalling the warrant cannot be allowed and hence the application filed by the opposite party was dismissed with a direction to appear in person. 

8.       The records of the District Commission would further show that on 11.09.2023 the case was advanced as per I.A.No.620/2023 filed by the Revision Petitioner.  In the above application, the Revision Petitioner had reported that the dispute between the Revision Petitioner and the complainant has been amicably settled and the Revision Petitioner had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) in full satisfaction of the claim of the complainant. On that day the case is seen adjourned to 15.09.2023 on which date again adjourned to 29.09.2023 after issuance of registered notice to the complainant.  On 04.09.2023 the complainant himself had filed an application as I.A.No.613/2023 seeking permission to withdraw the complaint and all the related petitions as the matter was settled.  He had also caused production of the settlement agreement for perusal of the District Commission.  In the order dated 15.09.2023 the District Commission had ordered this I.A. to be called on 29.09.2023.

9.       On 04.10.2023 the complainant was present before the District Commission. But no enquiry is seen made by the District Commission with regard to the prayer of the complainant to withdraw the complaint as the dispute stands settled outside court.  When a dispute is settled out of court and the parties had already reached a final settlement and the fact is informed to the adjudicating authority with documents the grievance of the complainant stands redressed.  At this stage the District Commission ought to have verified the legality of the settlement arrived at and if the settlement was found as lawful the District Commission ought to have passed an order in I.A.No.613/2023. 

10.     The records would show that the opposite party had filed the settlement agreement and the D.D. issued in favour of the complainant along with I.A.No.620/2023. On receipt of this the District Commission ought to have recalled the warrant and passed an order in I.A.No.613/2023 to ascertain as to whether the settlement was lawful or not.  When the grievance of the complainant stands redressed through a settlement, the question of delivery of scooter does not arise as the complainant had already opted to receive Rs.42,000/-(Rupees Forty Two Thousand) for recording full satisfaction of his grievance.  The District Commission ought to have taken into account that the order to deliver the scooter to the complainant was an exparte order.  It is true that the opposite party was unable to comply with the order.  But the parties arrived at a settlement out of court and the settlement was reported to the District Commission.  The warrant ordered against the opposite party was liable to be recalled at this stage.

11.     The stand taken by the District Commission in rejecting the request made by the petitioner does not appear to be correct.  When the party had reached a settlement, the limited question to be considered by the District Commission is as to whether the settlement is lawful.  When the complainant had opted for an out of court settlement the District Commission was not right in proceeding against the opposite party for the alleged non-compliance of the order.

 12.    In the result, this Revision is allowed.  The order passed by the District Commission in I.A.No.501/2023 dated 08.08.2023 is set aside and the petition is allowed.  The District Commission shall not insist for the presence of the opposite party as the complainant had already filed I.A.No.613/2023 seeking withdrawal of the complaint.  The District Commission shall consider I.A.No.613/2023 and pass orders in accordance with law.  Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SL