KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 03/2023

ORDER DATED: 21.11.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 84/2020 of DCDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Lijo Joy, S/o Joy Varghese, Thaiparambil (H), Thudathumkadavu, Varapuzha, North Paravur, Ernakulam represented by Authorized Person.

          (By Adv. Lekshmi Ramakrishnan, Adv. Muhammad Jasheen J., Adv. Rajeev A.R and Adv. Farha Shamsudeen)

RESPONDENT:

K.P. Suresh, S/o Parameswaran, Kunnathulli, Elavalla North P.O., Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur.

(By Adv. Ayyappa Das)

                                      ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 84/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (“the District Commission” for short).  The respondent is the opposite party therein. 

2.  The revision petitioner in this revision petition challenges the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the District Commission, whereby the evidence of the complainant was closed, as the complainant did not file proof affidavit within the period stipulated by the District Commission. 

3.  Heard both sides and perused the records.

4.  It appears from the proceedings dated 25.08.2021 that the District Commission appointed an expert for inspecting the premises on the request of the complainant as per order in I.A. No. 63/2021.  As per order dated 10.03.2022, the right as per the said order was taken away by the District Commission by way of forfeiture.  Thereafter, on 11.11.2022, it was represented before the District Commission that the proof affidavit of the complainant would be filed on that day itself.   On the basis of the said submission, the District Commission recorded that in the event of not filing the proof affidavit on that day, the complainant’s evidence would be closed.  Thereafter, the case stood adjourned to 15.11.2022.  On 15.11.2022, the complainant filed proof affidavit.  However, the proof affidavit was rejected by the District Commission.

5.  It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the District Commission had forfeited the order appointing the commissioner on 10.03.2022, which was just after the period of exclusion granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with Covid-19 pandemic. 

6.  The District Commission appointed the expert commissioner to inspect the premises as the District Commission was fully convinced that the point/issue to be adjudicated in the case on hand could not be properly and in a just manner adjudicated in the absence of the report of the expert commissioner.  If that be so, it was not proper for the District Commission to forfeit that right.  There is also no provision for forfeiture of such a right.  From the proceedings dated 11.11.2022 and 15.11.2022, we are satisfied that the District Commission ought not have rejected the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The District Commission ought to have borne in mind that the ultimate goal for granting opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence is to find out the truth to render justice effectively.  It is the bounden duty of the District Commission to find out the truth and take a decision on the basis of the said finding.  By rejecting the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, the District Commission had denied the opportunity to the complainant to contest the matter on merits.  In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the District Commission cannot be legal, proper and correct and consequently we set aside the same.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 84/2020 stands set aside.  The District Commission is directed to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence on the basis of the proof affidavit already filed.  As regards the commission application, if the petitioner files any application for reconsidering order dated 10.03.2022, the District Commission shall allow that application. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb