Allowed

Parameswaran v. Jaco

Kerala HC3 Jun 2014WP(C)/2482/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside a restraint warrant and arrest direction issued by the District Forum against the petitioner in a consumer dispute. The Court held that the petitioner complied with the NOC requirement by submitting it to the Municipality as directed, leading quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the Forum to decide the complaint on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing arrest and restraint warrant set aside. Consumer Forum directed to dispose of the complaint on merits.

Parameswaran Vs Jaco — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 2482 of 2014 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

------------------

¶8

PARAMESWARAN, S/O.RAMASWAMY, AGED 52 YEARS, KATTUPARAMBU MADOM, WEST ARAKULAM, METHALA.P.O. - 680 126, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. JACO, S/O.UKKEN VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 62, VARGHESE VILLA, EAST FORT, CHEMBUKKAVU.P.O., 680 020, THRISSUR.

¶13

2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AYYANTHOLE.P.O.,680 022, THRISSUR.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. JACO (PARTY IN PERSON)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 2482 of 2014 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/01/2012 IN C.C. 47/2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 10/07/2012 IN -DO-

¶22

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 13/02/2012 IN O.S 283/2012 IN THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THRISSUR.

¶23

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/03/2013 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 599/2013 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI.

¶24

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOC AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/06/2013 IN CC 47/2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2013 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 354/2013

¶27

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10/09/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXT.R1/01: RECEIPT DT 20/3/2013 OF DEPOSIT OF RS.13150/- AT CDRF THRISSUR.

¶30

EXT.R1/02: IA. 345/13 FOR NOTING VIOLATIONS BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN THE ORDER OF 8/3/2013 OF NCDRC.

¶31

EXT.R1/03: EMAIL DT 23/2/2013 FROM KAMAKSHY CONSTRUCTIONS REGARDING KEY TO APARTMENT.

¶32

EXT.R1/04: LETTER DT 23/2/2012 FROM SURESH A.L.

¶33

EXT.R1/05: I.A. 510/13 ASKING FOR DOCUMENTS TO VERIFY THE AFFIDAVIT/NOC

¶34

EXT.R1/06: IA 510/13 ORDER

¶35

EXT.R1/07: INTERIM ORDER ON I1 144/12

¶36

EXT.R1/08: THE AGREEMENT FOR LAND AND CONSTRUCTION.

¶37

EXT.R1/09: SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT FOR CONSIDERATION TOWARDS THE APARTMENT

¶38

WP(C).NO. 2482 OF 2014 (I)

¶39

EXT.R1/10: SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT FOR EXTR/ADDITIONAL WORK IN APARTMENT.

¶40

EXT.R1/11: ESTIMATE FOR (EXTRA/ADDITIONAL WORK) PROPOSED BUILDING FOR H TYPE

¶41

EXT.R1/12: COMPLETION CERTIFICATES BY THE OWNER, AND BY ARCHITECT

¶42

EXT.R1/13: PARTIAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FOR G+1ST FLOOR + 2ND FLOOR.

¶43

EXT.R1/14: PETITION TO SECRETARY THRISSUR CORPORATION.

¶44

EXT.R1/15: LETTER DT 10/1/2012 TO KAMAKSHY CONSTRUCTION FOR DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED ON VARIOUS ACCOUNTS.

¶45

EXT.R1/16: LETTER DT 14/3/2012 TO KAMAKSHY CONSTRUCTIONS STATUS OF STATUTORY WORKS AND STATUS OF AMENITIES, COPIES OF APPROVED PLANS ETC.

¶46

EXT.R1/17: ORDER IN RP 252/2012 IN HARIYANA STATE CDRC QUOTING APEX COURT JUDGMENTS.

¶47

EXT.R1/18: NOTICE FROM HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.(C).No. 2482 of 2014

¶53

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2014

¶54

J U D G M E N T

¶55

¶56

Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 and also the direction

¶57

issued to arrest the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P6. Ext.P1 is the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, which is pending consideration before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The subject matter in issue was taken up before the National Commission in a revision against an order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.59/12. The National Commission directed the parties to appear before the District Forum on 2.4.2013. The National Commission further observed that the District Forum shall first see in regard to the compliance of the order and pass orders accordingly. In fact the direction issued by the National Commission were 1) Calling upon the 1^st respondent to deposit an amount of Rs.1,33,150/- before the District Forum, 2) Petitioner to put him in possession of the

¶58

W.P.(C) No.2482 OF 2014

¶59

¶60

apartment within 48 hours and to give key and possession, 3) That necessary 'No Objection' Certificate (NOC) to be deposited by the petitioner before the District Forum.

¶61

It is further observed that disbursal of the amount shall be subject to the out come of the order.

¶62

Petitioner submitted Ext. P5, which according to the petitioner contained the NOC in compliance with the directions issued. The Forum by its order dated 21.6.2013 issued restraint warrant against petitioners and directed steps to be taken on 5.7.2013. The matter was posted on 30.7.2013. Petitioner preferred a revision before the State Commission as RP No.354/2013. By Ext.P7 order dated 2.9.2013, the State Commission did not interfere with the said order. At this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court.

¶63

According to the petitioner, there was no

¶64

W.P.(C) No.2482 OF 2014

¶65

¶66

specific format for giving NOC and therefore, there was no justification on the part of Consumer Forum to have issued restraint warrant against him.

¶67

This Court passed an interim order keeping in abeyance the order at Ext.P6. During the hearing of the matter, this Court had directed the petitioner to submit the NOC before the Municipality as per the format issued by this Court. The said interim order is dated 26.5.2014.

¶68

The 1^st respondent appearing as party in person and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the NOC as directed by this Court in the order dated 26.5.2014 is submitted before the Municipality. Therefore, insofar as one of the condition prescribed by the National Commission is concerned, it can be treated as complied with and the District Forum will have to act accordingly.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner however

¶70

W.P.(C) No.2482 OF 2014

¶71

¶72

submits that he is entitled for the amount deposited by the 1^st respondent before the Forum. I do not think so. The said amount had been deposited by the 1^st respondent and there is already a direction by the National Commission that the disbursal of the amount shall be after adjudication of the lis by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, the Consumer Forum will have to adjudicate on the merits or other wise of the dispute as per the directions issued by the National Commission. The only modification made is with reference to the submission of NOC which is directed to be produced before the Forum. Since the petitioner had already submitted NOC before the Municipality as directed by this Court, such a direction issued by the National commission being already satisfied, it need not be complied by the petitioner.

¶73

Having regard to these developments in the case, I

¶74

W.P.(C) No.2482 OF 2014

¶75

¶76

am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of as under :

¶77

It is declared that the petitioner had already complied with the direction to submit NOC. Therefore, Ext.P6 order against the petitioner is set aside. There will be a direction to the Consumer Forum to dispose of Ext.P1 complaint on merits in accordance with the procedure prescribed.

¶78

Sd/A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶79

True Copy

¶80

//P.A to Judge//

¶81

jm/

Parameswaran v. Jaco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parameswaran v. Jaco

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Bottled Water Manufactures Association Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies

P.D.Saji Vs the Tahsildar

John Philip Vs the State of Kerala

The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

K D Martin Vs the Director of Mining and Geology