KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.88/2022
ORDER DATED: 23.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C.No.04/2019 of DCDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2:
1. | Shajil C., Swaraj Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Ohm Nivas C, 404 Ambika Road, Pallikunnu P.O., Kannur – 670 004 |
2. | Swaraj Equipment Pvt. Ltd., 53 Annaj Rao Nagar, Vembuliammen Koil Street, West K.K. Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 |
(by Adv. Suja Madhav)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| The Manager, Zeenath Silk and Sarees, Kottakkal, Malappuram |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
The opposite parties in C.C.No.04/2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (the District Commission for short) are in revision. The Revision Petitioners are the manufacturers of Water Purifier Equipments. They had installed a Well Water Treatment Plant for the respondent/complainant. The complaint before the District Commission is that the Well Water Treatment Plant was not working properly. In order to prove his case, the complainant had the Treatment Plant inspected by an Expert Commissioner. According to the Revision Petitioner, the report of the Commissioner is biased. Therefore, the Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.601/2022 with a prayer to remit and also to set aside the commission report. A prayer to issue another commission also is sought. The said petition has been dismissed by the order under revision.
2. According to Advocate Suja Madhav who appears for the Revision Petitioner, the petition has been dismissed by a cryptic order which only says that there was no reason to allow the above prayer of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, it was necessary for the District Commission to have supported its order with proper reasons. Therefore, the counsel prays that the order may be set aside.
3. Heard. We find considerable force in the contentions put forward by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner that it was necessary for the District Commission to have supported the order under revision with proper reasons. The order does not indicate on what ground the District Commission has come to the conclusion that the petition was filed only to protract matters. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
4. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order under revision is set aside. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram is directed to take up I.A.No.601/2022 in C.C.No.04/2019, to hear both parties and to pass fresh orders in the matter, in accordance with law supported by reasons. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
T.S.P. MOOSATH | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER |
RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
