Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/64/2019

S. Jagannathan, S/o Srinivasan, Managing Director, M/s. Frame Work- Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Medavakkam, Chennai. - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.S. Sripathy, S/o Seethapathy, Hasthinapuram, Chennai-600 064. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. V. Ramana Reddy

26 Aug 2021

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

Present:          Hon’ble Thiru.Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

              TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                          MEMBER

F.A.No.64/2019

[Against the order passed in CC.No.39/2018, dated 20.06.2018  on the file of the District Commission, Chengalpattu]         

                                     DATED THE  26^th DAY OF AUGUST  2021.                                                 

S.Jagannathan,

S/o. Srinivasan, Managing Director,

M/s. Frame Work – Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,

No.42, 6^th Avenue, RWD Palm,

Babu Nagar, 3^rd Main Road,

Medavakkam, Chennai.                                                                                                    :: Appellant /Opposite party

                                                                                               Vs.

L.S.Sripathy,

S/o. Seethapathy,

No.5, Ponni Amman Koil 2^nd Street,

Hasthinapuram,

Chennai – 600 064.                                                                                                              :: Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Appellant                  :  M/s. V. Ramana Reddy

Counsel for Respondent              :  M/s.G. Gopalakrishnan

             This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 26.08.2021  and on hearing the arguments of appellant  and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:- 

ORDER

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  

      1.             The opposite party before the District Commission  is the appellant herein.

2.              Heard the counsel for the appellant. The complaint was filed before the District Forum by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.15.98,041/- being the balance of sale consideration along with interest at 9% to be paid from the date of complaint (i.e) 12.03.2018 till realization. The complainant also prayed for direction to the opposite party to execute and register the construction agreement at his own cost and also prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the opposite parties who are the builders as mentioned in the complaint.

3.               Now the counsel for the appellant submits that he was set exparte before the District Commission for non appearance. The counsel for the appellant further submit that  when the summon was sent to his office address on 03.05.2018 he was out of country  though the summon was received in his office, he was not  informed about the receipt of the summon by his office staff. Hence he could not appear before the commission and hence he was set exparte on, 31.05.2018 and      an exparte order was passed on 20.06.2018. Now the present appeal has been  filed  to set aside the  exparte order. The counsel for the appellant further submit that when the appeal came up on 30.04.20 before this Commission the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.8 lakhs before the District Commission apart from payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the Respondent/complainant.

4.            Today when the matter is taken for consideration the counsel for appellant submits that he had  deposited Rs.8 lakhs before the District Commission and paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the Respondent /complainant thus he prays to set aside an exparte order and remand back the matter before the DCDRC for fresh Disposal.

5.             In such circumstances we feel it would be appropriate to set aside the exparte order passed by the District Commission and to remand back the matter to the District Commission, Chengalpattu for fresh Disposal. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back and the appellant / opposite party is directed to file  written version within 30 days from date of appearance and the District Commission is directed to  dispose of the case on merits as early as possible. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.09.21.

            In the result the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back for  Fresh Disposal on merits.

 

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                              R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

INDEX:YES / NO

D/S/open court