Kerala

StateCommission

RP/56/2017

K O JOHN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE COCHIN FASHION JEWELLERY - Opp.Party(s)

P V VARGHESE

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION NO. 56/17

 ORDER DATED : 04.10.2017

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                   : MEMBER

REVISIONPETITIONER

E.O John, aged 90, S/o Late Ouseph, Kottoor House, Kanjiramattom P.O, Amballoor village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam-682 315

          By Adv. Shir.P.V.Vargese(Kanjiramattom)

RESPONDENTS

1.  The Cochin Fashion Jewellery a partnership firm having office at XL/7445, M.K.V.Building, Near Shenoy’s Theatre, M.G.Road, Kochi-682035 rep. by its Managing Partner TR.Krishnan, Surtna, Salik Rajan Road, Gandhinagar, Kochi
2. Shri T.R.Krishnan, Suratna, Salim Rajan Road, Gandhinagar, Kochi
3. Shri P.Balachandran, Janaki Bhavan, Pallilamkara, Kalamassery, Kochi
4. Shri.A.K.Joseph, Arackal House, Pachaqlam, Kochi=682012

ORDER

JUSTICE SHRI  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN. PRESIDENT

               Revision is directed against the order dated 02.08.2017 in ST 14/15 in CC 95/13 of District Forum, Ernakulam.  Decree holder/complainant is the revision petitioner.  In execution proceedings, it appears, the opposite party/judgment debtor filed a memo stating that the matter was settled between the parties out of Forum and that he had complied the order passed in the complaint.  Acting on that  representation ST case was closed and warrant issued against him was recalled.  Challenge in the revision is against that order.

           We heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.  Fraud was practiced upon the Forum in passing  the impugned order and that was also when complainant remained absent, is the submission of the counsel.  Recalling of the warrant with an advance petition was moved before the Forum without notice to complainant or his counsel is the further submission of the counsel.  Perusing the memorandum of revision we notice that there was a settlement between the parties , but it is impeached as vitiated by a mutual mistake and, thus, claimed to be void. Power of Attorney holder of the complainant, it is stated,  settled the matter with the judgment debtor/offender when execution proceedings continued is conceded to by the revision petitioner in his memorandum of revision.  Power of Attorney holder had no authority to enter into such settlement and there was no full settlement of the claim upheld by the National Commission is the challenge.  If the power of attorney holder had acted in excess of the authority conferred it is  open to the decreeholder to proceed against him in accordance with law.  Plea of  mutual mistake canvassed   to assail settlement  on  the facts disclosed  is not appreciable.  We do find no merit  and the revision is dismissed.

 

JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V.JOSE                            :  MEMBER

pr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE KERALA STATE              CONSUMER DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSIION

VAZHUTHACAUDE,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

          ORDER IN REV.56/2017

         DATED 4.10.2017