State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Giri Prasad Raveendran vs Authorised Signatory, Dsc Motor Pvt ... on 5 September, 2023
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT R.P.NO.95/2023 (Against CMP.No.33/2022 in CC.NO.89/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvannamalai) DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 Giri Prasad Reveendran S/o. G.Raveendran No.7, 2nd Cross Street M/s. Hari Radhakrishnan Ramappa Nagar, Perungudi Counsel for Chennai - 600 096 Petitioner / Complainant Vs. 1. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory 2nd, 5th & 6th Floor, Corporate One (Banni Building), Plot No.5 M/s. G.Guru Prasath Commercial Centre, Jasola Counsel for R1 New Delhi - 110 025 2. M/s. DSC Motor Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory No.399, Anna Salai, Nandanam Chennai - 600 035 3. M/s. DSC Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory R2 & R3 Served absent Majestic Studios, No.48/5, Arcot Road Saligramam, Chennai - 600 93 1to 3 Respondents/ 1 to 3 Opposite parties This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / Complainant praying to set aside the order dt.8.9.2022 made in CMP.No.33/2022 in CC.No.89/2022 before the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai. The petition is taken up today for consideration, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for petitioner, this commission made the following order in the open court. ORDER
JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant, as against the order of the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai, in CMP.No.33/2022 in CC.No.89/2022 dt.8.9.2022, in dismissing the petition for default.
2. The petitioner / complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission in CC.No.89/2022. Pending complaint, he filed a petition before the District Commission, praying to receive the additional document viz. DVD in evidence, and mark the same as an exhibit in the main complaint.
3. The said petition was dismissed for default by the District Commission, due to non-appearance on the side of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner had submitted that main complaint was transferred from District Commission, Chennai (South) to District Commission (Thiruvannamalai) and it was renumbered as RBT/CC/89/2022. Subsequent to re-numbering the said complaint was listed alongwith the petition in CMP.No.33/2022 for the hearing on 15.7.2022, and thereafter on various dates. Since neither the petitioner/ complainant nor the counsel for the petitioner have received any summons, they were not aware about the date of hearings. Therefore, they have not appeared before the District Commission, on the date of hearings. Because of their non-appearance, the petition came to be dismissed for default. Since the documents sought to be filed is a vital document, prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Though the learned counsel for 1st Respondent/ 1st Opposite party appeared through counsel, had not filed any counter. There is no representation for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents/ 2nd and 3rd opposite parties.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ complainant and perused the material records.
7. Be that as it may, irrespective of the reason assigned by the Revision Petitioner in the affidavit for his non-appearance before the District Commission, Thiruvanamalai, in the interest of justice, in order to give a chance to the petitioner/ complainant to agitate his right on merit, I am inclined to allow this petition by setting aside the order impugned. Accordingly, the District Commission is directed to decide the above petition for receiving the additional documents afresh on merit, after hearing both parties. The Revision petition is allowed accordingly.
8. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai, in CMP.No.33/2022 in CC.No.89/2022 dt.8.9.2022, and the petition is ordered to be restored to the file, and the District Commission is further directed to decide the above petition praying for receiving the additional document afresh, after hearing bothsides, and dispose of the petition according to law on merit. There is no order as to cost.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/dRSJ/ ORDERS