08.08.2024

ORDER ON ADMISION

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The Complainant/Revision Petitioner has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.12.2023 passed in CC.No.22.2022 by 4^th Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on I.A filed by the complainant for appointment of the Court Commissioner to inspect the property and verify the damages suffered and also to provide experts report in order to substantiate the claim.   The District Commission had dismissed the application filed by the complainant for the reason that the application was filed belatedly at the stage of final arguments when the evidence of both sides are completed and also for the reason that the damages sought in the application cannot be assessed after repair of the damaged portion and dismissed the application.  The grounds for dismissal of an application are not satisfactory.  In fact after the wooden lamination flooring about 1000 sq.ft , the complainant is suffering leakage at the house and he was not able to stay in the house peacefully.  Due to which they have remove the wooden flooring and sought for reimbursement by alleging a deficiency in service.  If the application is allowed, no hardship causes to the Opposite Party and at the same time if, the Court Commissioner submits the report, the true facts will be highlighted in order to adjudicate the dispute hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and allow the application filed by this complainant by giving the direction for appointment of the Court Commission in the interest of justice and equity.

          2.     Heard-On admission.

3.     Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal we noticed that, the complainant had filed an application for appointment of the Court Commissioner when the case stood for arguments on merits.  The objections was filed by the Opposite Party and after hearing from both side, the District Commission dismissed the application for the reason that the application was filed in belated time and also for the reason that the Commission had earlier suggested for appointment of the Court Commissioner in order to examine the damages and submit the report but, inspite of sufficient opportunities the complainant had not chosen to file an application for appointment of the Court Commissioner  at the time of producing the evidence hence, rejected the application.

4.     We are of the opinion that an appointment of Court Commissioner can be done at any stage of the proceedings.  Mere completion of evidence from both side does not preclude the complainant to file application for appointment of the Court Commissioner.  Though the complainant had not chosen to file an application at the earliest point of time as per the advice of the District Commission cannot be ground for rejection of an application filed by complainant at the stage of arguments.  The District Commission cannot pre-decide that the Court Commissioner report is not required when the repair was already done.  At the same time, no hardship causes to the Opposite Party if the Court Commissioner is appointed and process the actual damages found/caused as alleged hence, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The appeal is allowed. 

The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by 4^th Additional District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at Bangalore, in CC.No.22/2022 is hereby set aside.

We direct the District Commission to appoint Court Commissioner and proceed as per law.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

(Sunita .C. Bagewadi)                                                                                                                            (Ravishankar)                                 Member                                                                                                                                        Judicial Member

ARD*