At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. K. BASKARAN
By, JUDICIAL MEMBER
For the Petitioner: M/s. K. Balajee, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, M/s. A. Dharanidharan, R4, M/s. Amernath Rao Khande, Advocates.
(This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in dismissing CMP.No.288/2016 in CC.No.305/2015 dt.19.1.2017 which was filed to set aside the exparte order passed on 29.9.2015.
This petition coming on before us for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothsides, this commission made the following order in the open court.)
Dr. S.Tamilvanan, President (Open Court)
1. This Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing CMP.No.288/2016 in CC.No.305/2015, for default.
2. The petition under dispute was filed before the District Forum, Chennai (South) praying to set aside the exparte order dt.29.9.2015, which was dismissed by the District Forum, for non-compliance of the conditional order.
3. This Revision Petition came up before this Commission for hearing today. We have heard the learned counsel on bothsides and passed the following order in the open court.
4. We have carefully perused the order of the District Forum, and the materials available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/1st opposite party, submitted that the non-compliance of the conditional order was neither wilful nor wanton, and if the version of the petitioner/1st opposite party is not accepted, that would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner/1st opposite party.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/1st opposite party. It was submitted that due to the fact that the date was wrongly noted by the junior counsel, the 1st opposite party could not comply the order in time thereby the petition came to be dismissed. Considering the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/complainant if this petition is allowed, and in order to give a chance to the 1st opposite party to agitate their right on merit, we are inclined to allow the Revision Petition, enabling the petitioner to agitate their right on merit. But considering the default committed by the petitioner/1st opposite party, we have directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost to the Legal aid account of the State Commission. Since the conditional order is complied with, this Revision Petition is allowed.
7. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum in CMP.No.288/2016 in CC.No.305/2015 dt.19.1.2017, and the petition in CMP.No.288/2016 in CC No.30
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
5/2015 is allowed. The District Forum is directed to receive the version of the 1st opposite party, and proceed with the case as per law. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the main complaint, on merit, at the earliest. No order as to cost in this Revision Petition.