KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.44/2023
ORDER DATED: 29.01.2024
(Against the Order in I.A.No.04/2023 in C.C.No.125/2022 of DCDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1. | M/s Diva Builders & Developers represented by its Proprietor, Santhosh Kumar A, 3rd Floor, Grand Mall, Thalassery – 670 101 |
2. | Santhosh Kumar A., Civil Contractor Cum Proprietor, 3rd Floor, Grand Mall, Fly Over Junction, O.V. Road, Thalassery – 670 101 |
(by Adv. Abhishek R.V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Mithun P.P., S/o Late Balakrishnan residing at Puthan Purayil House, Near Edathilambalam, P.O. Nettur, Thalassery – 670 105 |
(by Adv. D.R. Rajesh)
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The Revision Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 30.05.2023 in I.A.No.04/2023 in C.C.No.125/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (the District Commission for short). The respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission. As per the order against which this revision is filed, the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner is dismissed.
2. According to the respondent/complainant, the Revision Petitioner had undertaken the work of construction of a residential house for the respondent. According to him, a total amount of Rs.35,10,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Ten Thousand only) was paid to the Revision Petitioners on various occasions. However, the construction was defective and sub standard. The building suffers from widespread leakage, plastering is of low quality and the house presents a shabby and ugly appearance. Therefore, he has sought compensation.
3. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that, they had not received any notice from the District Commission. The addresses mentioned in the complaint were not correct. As per the records the name of the establishment of the Revision Petitioner is Diva Technologies (P) Ltd. But the address given in the complaint is wrong. Therefore, it is contended that they have not received notice.
4. In view of the above contention, we called for the records from the District Commission and have perused the same. We find from the records that, the complainant has produced the original receipt issued by the Revision Petitioners which shows their address as Diva Builders and Developers, 3rd Floor, Grand Mall, Flyover Junction, O.V. Road, Thalassery – 670 101. The receipt also bears the seal of the Revision Petitioners which also shows the same address. We find from the records that notices issued at the addresses mentioned above had been returned to the sender with the endorsement, “addressee refused”. Since notice issued had been refused by the Revision Petitioners, the District Commission had proceeded to declare them exparte. We do not find any infirmity in the said procedure. The present contention put forward by the Revision Petitioners that their addresses were wrongly mentioned in the complaint does not find any support from the documents on record. No additional material has been placed before us to warrant a different conclusion.
In the above state of affairs, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Commission.
In the result, this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
