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


The Cotton Hill Heights Owners Association (CHHOA), Cotton Hill Heights & Another v/s M/s Southern Investment Pvt. Ltd.,

    Revision Petition No. RP/10/33 (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/07/2010 in Case No. 21/2002 of District Thiruvananthapuram)
    Decided On, 17 May 2011
    At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
    By, THE HONOURABLE SHRI. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR MEMBER
    For the Appellant : Sri.V.Ajakumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : -------


Judgment Text
SHRI. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER



The complainants in OP.21/02 before the CDRF, Tiruvananthapuram are the Revision Petitioners herein. The petition is filed calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below in I.A.117/2010 filed by the complainants. By the impugned order, the Forum below has dismissed the petition.


2. The petitioners who were the complainants before the Forum had filed a petition for appointing a commission to inspect and report the status of the flats ear-marked as 1-J and 1-K and also the alterations made if any. It is the case of the complainants that for a fair disposal of the complaint before the Forum, a commission report is very essential and that it was without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the prayers in the petition that the Forum below dismissed the petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners invited our attention to the fact that the appointment of a commission and a report obtained therein will not in any way adversely affect the adjudication of the complaint and instead of that it will only help for a proper disposal of the matter.


3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties vehemently resisted the matter by arguing that the Forum below had rightly appreciated the facts of the case and had dismissed the petition which is only to be upheld. He has also submitted before us that the petition to appoint a commission was only to drag the matter further and it was done without any bonafides. He has also submitted that the Suit filed before the Rent Control Court was dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainants was also dismissed and hence the Forum below had dismissed the petition rightly.


4. We have gone through the order passed by the Forum below. In the order it is stated that as the OS.470/02 of the Rent Control Court was dismissed and the appeal also had been dismissed, the petition filed by the complainants would serve no purpose. It is seen that it is based on the dismissals of the OS and the appeal that the Forum below had arrived at the conclusion that the petition deserves to be dismissed. We have also gone through the copy of the original suit filed by the plaintiffs/complainants before the Rent Control Court. On a perusal of the same we find that it is a suit filed for getting a decree restraining the defendants from alienating the premises to any strangers and from utilizing the same for any purpose other than running a restaurant and health club at least till the disposal of the OP.21/02 pending before the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. It is also observed from the judgment produced by the complainants in the above said OS that Munsiff has dismissed the Suit for injunction on the ground that the plaintiffs have an option to get an efficacious relief from the consumer Forum. It is to be noted that a suit before the Civil Court is not a bar in entertaining a complaint before the Forum. Moreover the remedies sought for are also different, as far as the present case is concerned. The petition (I.A.117/10) is for appointing a commission and to report about the status of the premises 1-J and 1-K and also to ascertain the proposed additional constructions or alterations if any. We do not think that a commission report will any way harm or be prejudicial for the disposal of the OP.21/02 on the file of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. Moreover, the Forum has taken a view that since the Civil Court has dismissed the suit for injunction; the appointment of a commission will be of no use. We do not agree with the said view of the Forum below. A fact finding commission report will only help the Forum to adjudicate the matter in the correct perspective. We are of the view that the Forum below ought to have allowed the petition and obtained the report rather than shutting down the opportunity of the Complainants to procure a report regarding the status of the premises.


In the result the revision petition is allowed. The Forum below is directed to appoint a commission in ord

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
er to inspect ascertain and file a report regarding the prayers made by the complainants/revision petitioners in the petition No.117/10 in OP.21/02. However a time frame may be fixed by the Forum below for the speedy disposal of the case since the matter is of 2002. The parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 15-06-2011. The office is directed to send back the case records to the Forum below along with the copy of this order urgently.
O R