KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.41/2024

ORDER DATED:01/07/2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.88/2024 in C.C.No.294/2023 of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/II^nd OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Hareesh Kumar.P & Adv.Syam.S)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a petition filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.294/2023 on the file of the District Consumer Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission in Short) against the order passed by the District Commission in IA.88/2024.  The petitioner had filed IA.88/2024 to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.  The above petition was dismissed by the District Commission as per the order dated 07/05/2024.  

2. The complainant has approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to the construction of a residential building.  The complainant had also caused production of the approved plan pertaining to the proposed construction, agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party along with the report and plan prepared by the engineer.  The petitioner had filed this application on the ground that there was no agreement between the complainant and the petitioner and that the complainant did not file any documents to prove alleged agreement executed but the District Commission took a view that at this stage no decision could be arrived at in a hasty manner.  According to the revision petitioner the District Commission went wrong in dismissing the application on the reason that the complainant did not cause production of any evidence in support of the averments contained in the complaint.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.  Perused the copy of the order passed by the District Commission.  The petitioner had also caused production of the copy of the complaint for perusal. 

4. Ongoing though the complaint it could be seen that the complainant had alleged deficiency in service with respect to the construction put up by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties had filed a written version by disputing the entire facts pleaded in the complaint. So in such a situation without permitting the parties to tender evidence no decision could be arrived at as sought for in the IA.88/2024.  The District Commission had exercised its discretion in a proper manner.  There is no irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the District Commission.  The revision lacks merits.  Hence the petition is dismissed.