State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Telma De Sa Pinto vs Audhut Ramnath Mauzo & Others on 3 January, 2023
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of First Appeal 06 of 2019 in Consumer Complaint
69 of 2016.
Before: Shri. Dhananjay A. Jog, President (officiating)
Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member
Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member
Mrs. Telma de Sa Pinto,
Wife of Mr. Jose C. Pinto,
Widow, major in age,
H. No. 508, Betim,
Bardez, Goa. .....Appellant
Mr. Rui Manuel Pinto
H. No. 508, Betim,
Bardez-Goa. .....Appellant
Mr. Jose Chirstovam Pinto,
Since deceased
(through his Legal representatives)
a) Mrs. Vanessa Pinto (daughter-in-Law)
b) Mr. Fernando Pinto (Son)
c) Mrs. Ana Karina Pinto (daughter-in-law)
d) Mr. Francesao Jose Pinto (Son)
e) Mrs. Sheron Pinto (daughter-in-law)
all residing at H. No. 508, Betim,
Bardez-Goa. .....Appellant
V
Authut Ramnath Mauzo,
R/o Hira ramnath, Pundalik Nagar,
Porvorim, Bardez-Goa. ......Respondent
Adv. Shri. J. Ramaiya present for Appellant.
Adv. Shri. N. G. Kamat present for Respondent.
DATE: 03/01/2023
1
JUDGMENT
[per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]
1. We pass the following Judgment in Appeal arising against Order dated 30/01/2019 of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, North Porvorim-Goa in Complainant No. 69/2016.
2. The Appellant herein was is Opposite Party and Respondent was Original Complainant.
3. The brief facts of the matter are herein mentioned below:
i. That the Appellant herein is a Senior Citizen, Widow Mother/Mother in law of Respondents-3(a) and to 3(e) and Mother of the Respondent-2 herein and is completely relevant on the aid and advice of her representative i.e. the Advocate on a record.
ii. The Appellant herein submits that the Appellant is a Consumer in Complaint bearing No. 69/2016 pending before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum North-Goa, Porvorim.
iii. The Appellant further submits that the Respondent-1 alleges to be a Consumer and has filed a Complaint u/s 12 of CPA against Appellant herein and Respondents -2 and 3.2
iv. It is further submitted by the Appellant that the Complaint filed by Respondent-1 was mutually dismissed at the stage of admission and being aggrieved by the said Order Respondent-1 preferred an Appeal 18/2017 before this Commission which was decided on 21/02/2018.
v. The Appellant submits that vide Judgment and Order dated 21/02/2018, the Commission remanded the matter to the Ld. Forum District Commission, North which keeping all questions about maintainability of the Complaint open.
4. That the Appellant submits that the Appellant herein and the Respondent No-2(a) to (e) and the Respondent-1 filed their respective Written Versions and the pleadings were completed on 22/10/2018 and on 26/11/2018 the Respondent-1 herein filed his Affidavit-in-Evidence.
5. It is further submitted that the Appellant on 30/01/2019 sought time on the ground that the Affidavits although were ready for service, were not, sworn as the party was out of town and therefore requested the Ld. District Commission to fix the matter on the next day for filing of Affidavit-in-evidence.
6. The Forum in its wisdom did not grant the request of the Appellant and deemed fit to dismiss such an oral application and this was not objected by Respondent-1 herein.
37. That the Appellant submits that aggrieved by the Order dated 30/01/2019 passed by Consumer Complaint No. 69/2019, the same be challenged on the grounds mentioned below:
i. That the Order closing the evidence on is misconcerned in law and fact.
ii. That the District Commission, North-Goa was excessively harsh and caused grave and irreparable loss to Appellant by the Order of closure of evidence. Thus failing to appreciate the same.
iii. That the District Commission failed to appreciate and ignore the fact that the Advocate carried the draft of Affidavit-in-Evidence ready for service onto the Counsel of Respondent-1 and was merely seeking only a day to file the Affidavit.
iv. That the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate that there was justifiable cause to seek adjournment on 30/01/2019 and the same ought to have been granted.
v. That the Ld. District Commission also failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant herein was diligently pursuing its defence in the aforesaid proceedings and giving one additional opportunity in the facts and circumstances in the case would have been the most opportune thing to do in view of the fact that Opposite Party have been diligently pursuing the Consumer Complaint.4
vi. That the Ld. District Commission ought to have considered that procedure should not come in the way of doing substantial and that the Appellant further submits and prays that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. District Commission, North and an opportunity be granted to file a time bound Affidavit.
vii. Per Contra that the Ld. Counsel for Respondent-1 in his Arguments pointed out that Respondent-1 in pursuant to transposition of Respondents-2 and 3 filed by the Opposite Party are assailing the Order. In other words Respondents-2 and 3(a) to (e) is not maintainable in law and even on facts.
viii. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Application for transposition was allowed by this Commission by an Order passed on 04/06/2019.
ix. The Respondent-1 argued that Respondents-2 and 3 have no locus standi in filing the application for transposition as Appellants-2 and 3 in the present Appeal.
x. The Ld. Counsel also argued on the moot question-
whether the Appeal styled as First Appeal would lie before the Commission under the scheme of the Act of the 1986.
xi. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that there is a remedy in this scenario were the Appeal does not lie before such an Order and rather it should be a revision under section 17.
xii. The Ld. Counsel touched upon the merits during his arguments and submitted that the challenge is one 5 without merits and several opportunities were given to Opposite Parties to file Affidavit-in-Evidence which can be seen in the Roznama records placed before us.
xiii. The Counsel for the Respondent-1 also reiterated that these are summary proceedings.
xiv. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant in his rebuttal arguments emphasized that the Revision is well within the Jurisdiction rested within this Commission and having no compliance before the Commission is blatant.
xv. Further to the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels of both parties and on perusing the files and records placed before us our observations are as follows:
a. That the Ld. Counsel for Respondent-1 objected to the transposition during his Oral Arguments. b. But we noted that the Order for Transposition of Respondents-3(a) to (e) was passed as far back as 04/06/2019.
c. Since this Order dated 04/06/2019 was not Appealed against, it has achieved finality. d. Therefore transportation is an accepted fact therefore for the above reasons and observation we pass the following Judgment:
ORDER
1. The Appeal is allowed.
2. The Roznama Order dated 31/01/2019 of District Commission, North is quashed and set aside.6
3. Matter to be remanded back to the District Commission, North for further proceedings.
4. Instructions to accept Affidavits of present Appellants subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- by each Appellant payable to Respondent-1.
5. Proceedings in this matter stands closed.
6. Parties to appear before District Commission, North on 27/01/2023 at 10.30a.m.
[Shri Dhananjay A. Jog] President (officiating) [Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar] Member [Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves] Member VS 7 8