D.O.F:01/04/2022

                                                                                                  D.O.O:29/07/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

RA-3/2022 in CC.No.284/2015

Dated this, the 29^th day of July 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

1. Mohammed Sajjad,

S/o A.Ahmed,

R/at‘Green View’ Post- Cheroor                         : Review Petitioner

Naimarmoola, Kasaragod. 671123                      : OP No:4

(Adv: Ramachandran.P)

                                                            And

1. Mr.Ahammed Kunhi.T.A Aged 60 years,

    S/o Abdulrahiman Haji,                                                   : Respondent/Complainant

   R/at Ashik Villa, Fort Road                                              Opposite Party No. 1 to 3

   Kasaragod                                                                         

   (Adv: Shrikanta Shetty.K)

2. M/s EURO GOLD

Door No. 16-2-T7 4/5 and 75/6,

Ground Floor, Kankanady,

Mangalore- 585 002                                                          

 (Adv: Shajid Kammadam)

3. Mr. Rafeequ Rahman H.K                                                 

S/o Mr.M.E Abdul Hakeem Maulvi                                   

R/at Moulavi Manzil,Choor                                                

 Kasaragod –

(Adv: Vinay.M. E)

4. Mr. Mohammed Shafeeq,

S/o Mr.M.E Abdul Hakeem Maulvi

R/at Flat No.603

Classic Harmony,

Balikashrama Road, Kankanady

Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 002

(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT

          This is an application for review filed by Opposite Party No:4 to review the order dated 30/04/2021 and permit the petitioner to contest the case on merits in the interest of justice.  The main complaint was filed by 1^st respondent seeking return of gold or to pay its value allowed by the commission as per order dated 30/04/2021.  The contention of the petitioner herein is that he is the partner of respondent No:2 firm engaged in gold business.  The grievance of the petitioner is that he retired from partnership firm on 12/04/2014 by a deed of retirement and all assets and liabilities are with continuing partners.  Further he came to know the order on recipt of notice in EP and he wanted to discharge from all liabilities.

     In the present case 4^th respondent filed his version, he produced the very same deed of retirement and after considering the evidence final order is passed on merits.  There is a mistake apparent on the face to the record and hence sought review.  Notice of appearance was issued to all the parties.

     Respondent filed a counter dated 04/05/2022 to the petition raising the contention that the final order was passed on merits after considering the merits and documents that the parties are properly represented.  No sufficient reasons to review.  No ground to condone the delay.  EP 53/2021 is initiated for execution and therefore petition may be dismissed.

a) Whether the petition is entitled for any relief claimed in the review petition.

   The commission finds the order dated 30/04/2021 is passed after hearing the parties including the petitioner herein the petitioner herein is the Opposite Party No:4 in the final order.   The petitioner also filed a version denying the allegations.  The specific case of Opposite Party No:4 is that he was a partner till he retired on 12/04/2014 and since thus he has no liability.

     Further deed of retirement is produced earlier and marked as Ext B8.  Very same contentions raised in the review petition also.  Consumer commission found that the complainant is found entitled for benefits and accordingly allowed the case on merits allowing opportunity to all the parties to conduct the case.  On merits allowing opportunity to all the parties to conduct the case.  The cause of action in the complaint is on 10/02/2012.

    Another contention raised by the petitioner is that his lawyer did not inform about the absent the disposal of the case that he has retired from the partnership and produced the deed of retirement and hence he is no more a partner.  Thus not liable for any reliefs sought for in the petition.

     It is seen that he has filed version in the main case represented through his lawyer and produced copy of deed of retirement cum re-constitution.  So it cannot be termed as decision not based on merits.  So the final order is passed on merits after hearing the parties after giving written version and evidence if any and there is no scope for review of earlier final order and the remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal on merit if so advised.

    The commission finds that the petitioner is not able to show any mistake apparent on the face of the record or any convincing reasons to review the final order passed in the above case and therefore the review petition 03/2022 in cc 284/2015 is dismissed without any order as to costs.    

       Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/