w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Inter Globe Aviation Ltd., through its authorized representative Rahul Kumar v/s Irphan Ahamed & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- S K AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090WB1999PTC089940

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U35300KA2007PTC043583

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. INDIA AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U62100DL2006PTC153980

Company & Directors' Information:- J T AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U62200DL2011PTC216080

    First Appeal No. 188 of 2020

    Decided On, 09 December 2020

    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN
    By, PRESIDENT
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. T.S.P. MOOSATH
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R. RANJIT
    By, MEMBER
    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. A. BEENA KUMARI
    By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: Vivek Sarin, R. Narayan, Advocates. For the Respondent: ------



Judgment Text

K. Surendra Mohan, President

Heard Adv. Narayan who appears for the appellant and Adv. Sameer Kharim who appears for the respondent.

2. According to the counsel for the appellant on receipt of notice from the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) in C.C. No. 101/2018 they had engaged a lawyer to represent them. However, the lawyer had not appeared for them or represented them though he had informed them that he had filed their version and was also representing them. Therefore, according to the appellant they were under the belief that they were being represented in the matter. It is contended that they have substantial contentions to be put forward in the Consumer Complaint which require to be considered by the District Forum on the merits. It is also contended that they have evidence to be produced in support of their contentions.

3. The counsel for the respondent contends that the only ground that could be urged by the appellant is that the complainant had not reached the Airport Terminal at the required time and that he had been late. However since he had been issued with a boarding pass it is contended that the said contention cannot sustain.

4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellant had not appeared before the District Forum, had not filed their version and had not adduced any evidence in support of their case. What they plead for is only an opportunity to place and prove their case before the District Forum and to consider the merits of their case. Therefore we do not propose to venture into the task of evaluating the merits of the case put forward by either of the parties at this stage.

5. Having heard the respective counsel, we are satisfied that it is necessary to grant the appellant an opportunity to contest the complaint before the District Forum on the merits. However, such an opportunity can be granted only on terms.

Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal in accordance with law after permitting the appellant to file version and adduce evidence in support of their case. However, such remand shall be subject to the condition that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is paid as costs to the respondent. The respondent’s cou

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nsel shall be at liberty to seek disbursement of the amount of costs ordered as above from the statutory deposit made by the appellant while filing this appeal, on proper application. The appellant shall be at liberty to claim the balance amount, on proper application.
O R