Allowed

Dineshan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2013WP(C)/4878/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge High Court of Kerala allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for violating principles of natural justice. The Commission had condoned delay and allowed an appeal without issuing a notice to the petitioner despite compliance with service requirements. The matter was remanded to the Commission to decide afresh aft

What did the court decide?

The impugned verdict passed by the 2nd respondent Commission on 30.10.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commission to decide afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner both in the

Dineshan Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 4878 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DINESHAN, AGED 59, S/O.KESAVAN, RESIDING AT NALLA VEEDU, PEZHUMTHURUTHU, PERUMON.P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD, SRI.SAJU J. PANICKER.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS (CA) DEPATMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, MUNDROTHURUTHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATTAMTHURUTH.P.O., KOLLAM.

¶13

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

W.P.(C).NO.4878/2013-H:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 09/04/2012 IN C.C. NO.236/2010 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM.

¶20

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/10/2012 IN APPEAL NO.519/2012 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner and his son were complainants before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - Kollam, where the complaint was numbered as C.C. No. 236 of 2010. The grievance was in respect of defective service of the 3^rd respondent Bank. After considering the subject matter involved, Ext. P1 order came to be passed by the Forum on 09.04.2012, whereby the complaint was allowed and the loan taken by the complainant from the opposite party/Bank was termed as 'agricultural loan'; in turn directing to write off the balance, however making it clear that no compensation and cost would stand allowed. The verdict had taken up in appeal, at the instance of the 3^rd respondent Bank, by approaching the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing Appeal No. 519 of 2012 - along with a petition to condone the delay. It is contended that no notice was ever issued to the petitioner either in the appeal or in the petition to condone the delay and it was without hearing the petitioner, that the delay was condoned and the appeal was virtually allowed by the Commission, by passing Ext. P2 verdict

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 4878 of 2013

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

dated 30.10.2012, whereby Ext. P1 order passed by the Distric Forum was set aside. This in turn is under challenge in this writ pe ition.

¶33

Despite completion of service of notice, the 3^rd respondent has not turned up and no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. The specific pleading of the petitioner that Ext. P2 order was passed without issuing any notice of hearing stands un-rebutted.

¶34

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Ext. P2 verdict passed by the second respondent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent/State Commission for considering the matter afresh, after issuing notice to the petitioner; both in the delay petition and in the appeal.

¶35

The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶38

kmd

Dineshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dineshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.

Praveen Joseph Vs the District Collector,Palakkad & Anr.

Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Chief Environmental Engineer

M.Hemalatha Vs the Post Master General

K.v.Unni Vs State of Kerala