KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVIEW APPLICATION No.13/2024 in REVISION PETITION No.56/2023
ORDER DATED: 18.04.2023
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1. | Palathra Hill View Apartments, Door No.10/318 H, N.H. Bypass, Near Lakeshore Hospital, Nettor P.O., Ernakulam represented by its Managing Director |
2. | P.C. Cherian, S/o P.T. Cherian, Managing Partner, Palathra Hill View Apartments Palathra House, House No.8/238 B, Thottappally, Temple Road, Eramalloor P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha – 688 537 |
(by Adv. A. Krishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
| Marykutty Thomas, W/o T. Thomas Mathai, Flat No.GF, Palathra Hill, View Apartments, Unichira, Edapally, Kochi |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
This is a petition seeking review of an order passed by this Commission on 18.01.2024 dismissing the revision. On 18.01.2024 when the Revision Petition was taken up, there was no representation for the Revision Petitioner. Therefore, the Revision Petition was dismissed for default.
2. According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, he was under the impression that the case could be represented through online mode on the said date. He had also attempted to join the online meeting. But he could not join for the reason that there was no online sitting on the said date. In the physical mode, when the case was called there was no representation for the Revision Petitioner. According to the learned counsel, by the time he had contacted the office of this Commission over telephone and had come to know that there would be no online sitting on the said date, it was too late for him to make some arrangements for him to be represented through another counsel. It was in the said circumstances that there was no representation for him when the case was taken up on 18.01.2024. He therefore prays for a further chance to present his case before this Commission on merits.
3. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. Since it is represented that the omission to be properly represented when the case was taken up on 18.01.2024 had occurred due to the fault of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, we are inclined to accept his explanation and to review our order, as sought for.
In the result, this Review Application is allowed and our order dated 18.01.2024 dismissing the Revision Petition for default is reviewed and set aside. Post the Revision Petition for hearing on 27.05.2024.
| JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
