Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/67/2022

R.Murugaprasath - Complainant(s)

Versus

The general manager - Opp.Party(s)

K.Sudhakar

04 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R. SUBBIAH                        -  PRESIDENT

                         Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL                            -  MEMBER

 

R.P. No.67/2022

(Against the Order dt.13.07.2022 in  Sr. No.55/2022 in C.C. No.40/2020

on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Tiruppur)

DATEDTHE 04^TH DAY JANUARY 2023

 

 

R. Murugaprasath,

S/o. Mr. Ramasamy,

D. No.2/441, Madheswara Nagar,

Ganapathypalayam,

Tiruppur – 641 605.                                .. Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Complainant.

 

-Versus-

The General Manager,

Canfin Homes Limited,

No.29/1, Sir M.N. Krishna Rao Road,

Lalbagh West,

Bangalore,

Karnataka.                                                 .. Respondent / Respondent / Opposite party.

. 

Counsel for Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Complainant : M/s. K. Sudhakar

 

Counsel for Respondent / Respondent / Opposite party    : M/s. V.M. Muthukumar

 

              This revision petition has been filed by the  Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Complainant to set aside the order dt.13.07.2022 passed in SR. No.55/2022 in C.C. No.40/2020 and this Commission made the following:-

 

Docket Order

 

This Revision Petition is filed, seeking to set aside the Order, dated 13.07.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Tiruppur, in S.R. No.55 of 2022 in C.C. No.40 of 2020, rejecting the Miscellaneous Petition, which was filed with a plea to appoint a Commissioner to inspect and note down the valuation of the subject construction, at the SR Stage.

   2. Heard both sides.

   3. In our view, rejecting the SR without even assigning any reason there-for is not a proper course.  The practice & procedure warrant that, apart from, at least, briefly outlining the arguments of the parties in support of the respective claim and counter-claim, the order should reflect due application of mind on the part of the Forum by way of recording the reasons as to why the arguments of the petitioner were found to be meritless so as to reject the matter at the SR stage.  A cryptic and non-speaking order that has no basis to infer due application of mind to the matter by the Forum concerned, is not only bad in law but also against the principles of natural justice.

          4. In that view of the matter, by allowing the revision, the impugned order, dated 13.07.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Tiruppur, in SR No.55 of 2022 in C.C. No.40 of 2020, is set aside and the District Commission is directed to number the petition and dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law.

5. Office of this Commission is directed to circulate a copy of this Order to all other District Commissions as well for due notice of the observations made therein.

 

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                      R.SUBBIAH                        

          MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT