Allowed

Smt.Vundavalli Surya Satyanarayanamma, v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Telangana HC4 Feb 2014WP/38242/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ petition against an appellate order denying deficiency of service. The court held that the failure to serve notice on the petitioner before the appellate decision violated natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the State Commission for a fresh decision on merits with directions to serve notice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.05.2013 set aside; case remanded to first respondent for fresh decision on merits after service of notice; parties directed to appear on 26.02.2014.

Smt.Vundavalli Surya Satyanarayanamma, Vs A.P. State… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 38242 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta)

¶4

The petitioner filed a complaint before the East Godavari District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kakinada, the second respondent herein, wherein, it was alleged that there is deficiency of service by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in providing certain essential services.

¶5

The complaint of the petitioner was allowed vide order, dated 09.05.2012 in C.D.No.84 of 2010 with a direction to restore power supply to the petitioner’s residential house.

¶6

Against the aforesaid order, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an appeal in F.A.No.909 of 2012 before the second respondent and the said appeal was allowed vide order, dated 15.05.2013, holding that there are no deficiency of services.

¶7

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was not served on the petitioner before the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, the first respondent herein and the same is clear from preamble of the order of the case, in which, it is written as “Counsel for the Respondent : Notice returned”. He further submits that the petitioner came to know about the same only when the E.P. is filed and no notice was served on her while the matter stood pending before the first respondent.

¶9

A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the petitioner was not served with any notice in the appeal before the first respondent, which was mandatory, and it is against the principles of natural justice. The first respondent has to pass orders after effecting service upon the petitioner.

¶10

In view of the above, we set aside the order, dated 15.05.2013 passed by the first respondent and remit the case for decision afresh on merits of the cases.

¶11

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the parties are directed to appear before the first respondent on 26.02.2014. No costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

__________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.

¶14

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY.

¶15

Date : 04.02.2014 Gvl

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶17

WRIT PETITION No. 38242 OF 2013

¶18

Date : 04.02.2014

¶19

Gvl

Smt.Vundavalli Surya Satyanarayanamma, v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Vundavalli Surya Satyanarayanamma, v. A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

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

M/s. International Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [Iarc] Vs Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad.

M/s Vitp Private Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s Vijayalaxmi Industries

M/s R S Molecules Private Limited, Vs The Union Of India

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M/s. Sri Laxmi Boiled Modern Rice Mill

The State of Ap Vs Sri Kanakamahalakshmi Rice Industries