Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/6/2014

T. VIJAYALAKSHMI - Complainant(s)

Versus

S. NAMASIVAYAM - Opp.Party(s)

A. ARAVAMUDHAN

20 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                     TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                MEMBER

                                                                                                F.A.NO. 6/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.3/2010, dated 27.10.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Chengalpattu)

DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF APRIL 2015

1.T.Vijayalakshmi,

   W/o.A.Thiruvengadam,

   No.74, Rajeswari Nagar,

   (Near Wipro Company),

   Gudivancheri – 603 202.

2.N.Vanathi,

   W/o.D.Natarajan,

   No.74, Rajeswari Nagar,                                     Appellants / Complainants

   Guduvancheri 603 202.

3.Minor N.Shanmugapriya,

   By father and guardian D.Natarajan,

   No.74, Rajeswari Nagar,

   Guduvancheri 603 202.

                              Vs

1.S.Namasivayam,

   Proprietor, Chella Travells,

   21/7, K.K.C.C.G.S.T Road,                                  Respondents / Opp.parties

   Kamaraj Nagar, New Perungalathur,

   Chennai 600 063.

2.The Proprietor,

   V.G.R. Travels,

   No.14, Thiruvalluvar Theatre Complex,

   South Ramport, Thanjavur-1.  
 

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 13.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants’ counsel and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Complainants   :    M/s.N.Aravamudhan           

Counsel for Respondents/ Opposite parties :  Served Called absent

                                      

ORDER

J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the complainants against the order passed by the District Forum, Chengalpattu in CMP.No.83/2011 dated 3.6.2013 in CC.No.3/2010, dismissing the petition for condonation of delay of 312 days to restore the complaint which was dismissed for default.

2.       It is pertinent to note that the complaint was dismissed for default and the petition filed by the complainants to restore the complaint to file condoning the delay of 312 days was dismissed for default, acting without jurisdiction to entertain the petition and hence the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

3.       On facts, it is seen that the complaint is of the order 2010, and the complaint was dismissed for default on 27.10.2010.  It is noted with displeasure that the petition for condonation of delay of 312 days and for restoration, has been decided by the District Forum after 383 days.  Considering all these, we hold that the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.83/2011 dated 3.6.2013 is liable to be set aside.

4.       In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.83/2011 dated 3.6.2013 and directing the District Forum to restore the complaint to file and to dispose of the complaint within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

         

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                             J.JAYARAM

    MEMBER                                                       PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES / NO

VL/D;/PJM/