State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Secretary, Thrissur Corporation vs Director Olive English Centre Digital ... on 5 January, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KERALA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/216/2016
SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION
PRESENT ADDRESS - THRISSUR ,KERALA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
DIRECTOR OLIVE ENGLISH CENTRE DIGITAL LANGUAGE
PRESENT ADDRESS - DEVAMATHA TOWERS ST THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD THRISSUR
,KERALA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
NEMO
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NEMO
DATED: 05/01/2026
ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.216/2016 ORDER DATED : 05.01.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.456/2008 on the files of DCDRC, Thrissur) PRESENT:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:
The Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur (by Adv. K.A. Nawshad & Adv. Abdulla N.M.) Vs. RESPONDENT:
Oliva English Centre Digital Language Lab, represented by Director, Dr. C.K. Thomas Devamatha Towers, St. Thomas College Road, Thrissur ORDER HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the first opposite party in C.C.No.456/2008 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (for short 'the District Commission').
2. The complainant contended that the complainant paid Rs.1,300/- on 07.05.2008 to the first opposite party for the purpose of fixing advertisement boards on the electric posts of the first opposite party. Accordingly, the advertisement boards were fixed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the second opposite party informed the complainant that he was having the authority to give the space for rent for fixing the advertisement boards and that he would permit the complainant to affix the boards on payment of Rs.25/- per board. However, the complainant was not prepared to pay money to the second opposite party. Therefore, most of the flex boards fixed by the complainant were removed from the posts during the night on that date. The complainant informed the matter to the first opposite party. However, no action was taken by them against the second opposite party. Since the first opposite party received the amount, the first opposite party was duty bound to provide space for displaying the flex boards of the complainant. However, that was not done. Therefore, there was unfair trade practice on the part on the first opposite party.
3. Notice issued from the District Commission was received by both the opposite parties. However, the second opposite party remained ex-parte.
4. The first opposite party filed version denying almost all the allegations in the complaint. It was contended that the complainant did not produce receipt for the payment of Rs.1,300/- to the first opposite party. It was further contended that the first opposite party had given the authority to allot the space for rent to display the advertisement boards to the second opposite party. Therefore, the complainant should have approached the second opposite party for displaying the flex boards. Since the complainant did not approach the second opposite party for fixing the flex boards having the advertisement on the electric posts in the area given to the second opposite party, the complainant was not permitted to affix the flex boards by the second opposite party.
5. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P5 were marked for the complainant. Exhibit R1 was marked for the first opposite party. Apart from marking Exhibit R1, no other evidence was adduced by the first opposite party. However, it is stated in the appendix to the order of the District Commission that RW1 was examined. However, the records, including the proceedings of the District Commission, would show that no witness was examined as RW1 before the District Commission. Therefore, the entry in this regard in the appendix in the order of the District Commission is incorrect.
6. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant.
7. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondent.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
9. The complainant would contend that the complainant paid Rs.1,300/- to the first opposite party for the purpose of displaying the advertisement boards. The complainant displayed the advertisement boards. However, the second opposite party informed the complainant that the second opposite party was given the right to allot the space for displaying the advertisement boards by the first opposite party and, hence, if the complainant wanted to display the advertisement boards, he should pay Rs.25/- per board to the second opposite party. The complainant was not prepared to pay any amount to the second opposite party. Therefore, most of the flex boards of the complainant were removed during the night on that date by the second opposite party. Even though the matter was informed to the first opposite party, no action was taken by them.
10. Exhibit P1 is the receipt issued by the first opposite party. The said receipt contains the seal of the first opposite party. It is specifically printed in Exhibit P1 that the said receipt is an advertisement tax receipt. It appears from Exhibit P1 that the appellant collected an amount of Rs.1,300/- from the complainant on 07.05.2008 as advertisement tax. On the reverse side of Exhibit P1, there is an endorsement as hereinunder:-
"Exhibit advertisement after the taking of the permission from the concerned authorities and paying of advertisement tax."
11. It is clear from the said endorsement also that the complainant had every right to display the advertisement board since the first opposite party had accepted money from the complainant. The first opposite party did not have a contention that Exhibit P1 was a forged document. Exhibit R1 would show that the first opposite party had already allotted the entire space for displaying the advertisement boards to the second opposite party on 03.11.2007 for a period up to 31.03.2010. Since Exhibit R1 was in force, the appellant/first opposite party ought not to have received the amount from the complainant as per Exhibit P1 receipt. However, since the appellant had accepted the amount as per Exhibit P1 at the time when Exhibit R1 was in force, there was definitely unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant in this regard.
12. Even though the District Commission found that there was unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party, the District Commission did not pass any order allowing the complainant to affix the advertisement boards in the area as requested by the complainant on the reason that the space was already allotted to the second opposite party as per Exhibit R1. However, the District Commission directed the first opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission, including the compensation and the costs.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit shall be refunded to the respondent/complainant, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
PRESIDENT JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA :
KUMAR JUDICIAL AJITH KUMAR D. :
MEMBER K.R. : MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN SL .................. SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT .................. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D JUDICIAL MEMBER ..................J SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R MEMBER