FA.No.907/2008 against CC.No.166/2007 District Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry.

Between-

1.Sri Srinivasa Handicrafts Industries,

   Rep. by its Proprietor, P.krishnaveni,

   W/o.Rama Rao, Agd about 50 years,

   R/o.Kalanagar, Kothapeta,

   East Godavari District.

2.P.V.Rama Rao, S/o.Subba Rao,

   Agd about 53 years, R/o.Kalanagar,

   Kothapeta, East Godavari District.

…Appellants/Opp.Parties 1  and 2.

And

1.Razole Taluka Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangham,

   Rep. by its President, Geddam Rama Rao,

   S/o.Mule Swamy, R/o.Nagaram,

   Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District

…Respondent No.1/Complainant.

2.The Dy.Director, Social Welfare Department,

   East Godavari District, Kakinada.

…Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.3.

Counsel for the Appellants                 - Mr.G.Krishna Murthy.

 Counsel for the Respondents            - Smt.T.Sarada (for R.1).

QUORUM-  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

-------

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties against the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry directing them to refund Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12 percent p.a. besides damages of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and on perusing the material on record, we are of the opinion that this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.  

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is it had paid Rs.50,000/- towards first instalment for making the bronze statue of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.  Later when the 1^st opposite party insisted, it has paid Rs.50,000/-.   Despite their request , they did not deliver the statue, and therefore, it claimed for refund of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24 percent per annum.

3.         The 1^st and 2n opposite parties though engaged an advocate did not file counter and even after awarding costs.  The District Forum after perusing Exs.A.1 to A.7 directed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest at 12 percent per annum on Rs.50,000/- from 20.06.1990 and on the remaining Rs.50,000/- from 20.12.1994, besides damages of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.  It had also directed the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 3^rd opposite party with interest at 12 percent per annum.

4.         Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties preferred this appeal alleging that the costs of Rs.300/- awarded by the District Forum were deposited on 31.03.1998 itself and the counter was also filed along with memo.  However, the office did not bring the said fact to the notice of the District Forum and on the very same day it passed the order directing these opposite parties to pay the aforesaid amounts. 

5.         It is not in dispute that the costs that were awarded were deposited and the counter was filed.  However, even before depositing the costs and filing counter, the District Forum has passed impugned order during the call work itself.  Considering the fact that the District Forum having given time till 31.03.2008 ought to have posted the matter on the next day and after satisfying itself that the order was not complied with, then only it could have set the opposite party exparte.  When dates are fixed, necessarily the parties could comply with the said order before the expiry of the date or closure of court hours.  However, appellants herein though virtually complied with the order of the District Forum, we are of the opinion that there was equally some latches on their part.  They could have informed the same at the time of call work.  They filed it later.  Considering the latches on the part of the appellants, we direct them to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant/1^st respondent herein, and on such payment the order could be set aside.  Costs accordingly are paid.

6.         In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside.  The District Forum is directed to restore CC.No.166/2007.  Since the 1st and  2nd opposite parties/appellants herein have already filed their counter, the District Forum is directed to receive the same and proceed in accordance with law.  Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.08.2008 without insisting for fresh notice.  The appellants are permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited under Sec.15 of C.P.Act by filing a cheque petition.    

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

Dt-01.08.2008.