KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 29/2024

ORDER DATED: 24.05.2024

(Against the Order in I.A. 761/23 in C.C. 458/2016 of DCDRC, Thrissur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Soan Xavier, Kalapparambath House, Kuzhur Desom, Kuzhur Village, Chalakkudy, Pin-680 307.

(By Advs. N.G. Mahesh & Sheeba Sivadasan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Tessy M.O., Principal in Charge, AKM Higher Secondary School, Poyya Desom-680 733.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

This revision petition is filed by the complainant in C.C. No.  458/2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (District Commission for short).  The complaint was filed in the year 2016 and had been pending before the District Commission.  After the evidence was completed and the case was posted for hearing, the revision petitioner filed a petition to reopen the evidence.  The said petition was opposed by the respondent herein.  The District Commission considered the petition and noticed that the recording of evidence in the case had been completed long back.  Though the revision petitioner had been granted a number of chances to appear for being cross examined, she had failed to appear before the District Commission.  Therefore, the evidence in the case had been closed and the case stood posted for final hearing.  The respondent/opposite party had filed notes of argument also.  Since the petition to reopen the evidence had been filed at the said belated stage the District Commission dismissed the same.  It is the said order that is under challenge in this revision.

2.  We have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner.  We have also considered the contentions advanced before us by the counsel.  Though it is contended that, the District Commission had not considered the medical certificate produced by the petitioner and another document marked on her side, no document has been produced before us.  We do not find any error of jurisdiction or any infirmity in the order of the District Commission that requires to be corrected in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.  For the above reasons, we find no merits in the contentions put forward by the counsel.  The complaint was filed in the year 2016 and has been pending before the District Commission for more than five years.  Had the revision petitioner been serious in prosecuting the matter she could have adduced all the evidence that she wanted.  There is no point in holding up the final disposal of the case before the District Commission, at this length of time.  We are therefore not inclined to admit this revision petition or to grant the reliefs that are sought for.  

This revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                 AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                   RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb