KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No. 40/2024
ORDER DATED: 18.11.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. 176/2024 in C.C. 270/2024 of DCDRC, Kollam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- M/s Em Tee En Publications, KHC Avenue, Kompara Junction, Near Kerala High Court, Ernakulam-682 018, represented by its Proprietor, Mrs. Deepa George.
- Arun Vallabhan, Senior Service Engineer, M/s Em Tee En Publications, KHC Avenue, Kompara Junction, Near Kerala High Court, Ernakulam-682 018.
(By Adv. B.M. Ajith)
-
RESPONDENT:
G. Jayanthakumar, Advocate, ‘Thanima, 158-Bodhi Nagar, Thattamala P.O., Kollam-691 020.
(Party in person)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 270/2024 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (“the District Commission” for short). The respondent is the complainant therein.
2. The respondent/complainant filed I.A. No. 176/2024 before the District Commission praying for a direction to the revision petitioners to update the ‘Case Search’ software of the complainant in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The respondent also sought for reimbursement of the excess amount collected from him along with other reliefs.
3. The District Commission, after hearing the respondent alone, passed the order impugned directing the revision petitioners to update the ‘Case Search’ Software (KHC) on both the computers of the respondent within a period of seven days. It was further directed that the update must be at the existing rate of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) till the case was finally disposed of.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the order impugned was passed without hearing the revision petitioners and hence there was violation of natural justice and consequently, the order impugned cannot be sustained.
6. It appears that the revision petitioners were not granted opportunity to file objection before passing the order impugned. It is borne out from the records that the order impugned was passed by the District Commission before the appearance of the revision petitioners before the District Commission. Since the order impugned was passed without granting an opportunity to the revision petitioners of being heard, the order impugned cannot be sustained on that reason alone.
7. It is also to be noted that the District Commission had entered in to a finding in the order impugned that the pleadings in the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant would undoubtedly show that the complainant’s assertions were true. It is not possible for the District Commission to enter into any such finding at this stage. Such a finding could be entered into only after adducing evidence by both sides. Since the District Commission had entered in to such a finding in the order impugned, the order impugned was having the effect of a final order, which is not contemplated under law. For the said reason also, the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside same.
In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to dispose of C.C. No. 270/2024, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
