Kerala

StateCommission

RP/33/2017

INDROYAL FURNITURE - Complainant(s)

Versus

USHA MURALEEDHARAN - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR

07 Aug 2017

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION PETITION.33/17

 

ORDER DATED:7.8.2017

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V.JOSE                                                                     : MEMBER

1. The Director,

Indroyal Furniture Co. Ltd.,

Royal Plaza, Opposite LIC,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

                                                                                                            : REVISION

                                                                                                              PETITIONER

2. The Branch Manager,

Indroyal Furniture Company Ltd.,

Parolikkal Junction,

Athirampuzha P.O, Ettumanoor,

Kottayam-686 562.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Krishnankutty Nair)

 

            Vs.

1. Usha Muraleedharan,

Poovappallilil House,

Kallissery, P.O,Chengannur,

Alappuzha, R/by Power of Attorney-

Sreejith Panicker.

                                                                                                            : RESPONDENTS

2. Sreejith Panicker,

Naduvilepurakkal House,

Peringara Village, Chathankari,

Pathanamthitta District,

PIN-689 112.

 

(By Adv: Sri. K. Karjet & Rubeena Shabu)

 

6698606.  

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN :  PRESIDENT

Order passed on 29^th September 2016 in CC.73/2016 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam is challenged in this revision. The first respondent challenged the maintainability of the complaint, and, after hearing both sides, the Forum relegated consideration of the question of maintainability for decision after taking evidence.  Aggrieved by that order the first respondent has preferred this revision.

2.      Heard the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner, Sri. P. Krishnankutty Nair, and also, the learned counsel for the complainant, Sri. K. Karjet.

3.      Order of the Forum is assailed by the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner relying on an order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7107/2003, where under the National Commission was directed to consider the issue of maintainability first and, then, proceed with the case.  Learned counsel has also contended that the transaction between the first and 2^nd respondents in the complaint was a commercial transaction and the goods collected by the 2^nd respondent from the first respondent were sold to the complainant after alteration.  The Revision petitioner, first respondent in the complaint, is therefore not liable to compensate the complainant and the complaint has to be held not maintainable against the revision petitioner, according to the counsel.

4.      Whatever be the merit of the case canvassed by the Revision petitioner, the question of maintainability raised in the case cannot be resolved without taking evidence by the Forum.  The decision rendered by the Apex Court relied upon by the counsel does not disclose the facts involved in that case to examine whether it has any relevance to the present case.  Challenge raised over maintainability by the first respondent is founded on facts imputed, and, any decision thereof can be taken only after taking evidence.  So, without prejudice to the right of the first opposite party to canvass the challenge over maintainability by leading evidence affirming the order of the District Forum the Revision is dismissed.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

 

 

V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER

VL