Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

The President/ Special ... vs Captain K. Vaidyanathan,1102, ... on 16 July, 2010

  
 
 
 
 
 
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
  
 
 
 
 







 



 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI 

 

  

 

Present Hon'ble
Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM
PRESIDENT 

 

 Tmt. Vasugi Ramanan,
M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I 

 

 Thiru S. Sambandam,
B.Sc.,
MEMBER II 

 

  

 

F.A.NO.644/2008 

 

(Against order in C.C.NO.264/2007 on the file of the
DCDRF, Chennai (South) 

 

  

 

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF
JULY 2010  

 

  

 

The
President/ Special Officer 

 

Trinity
Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., 

 

Plot No.40
(1/50), Kumudam Nagar 

 

Mugalivakkam,
Chennai  600 116
Appellant / Opposite party 

 

  

 

 Vs. 

 

  

 

1.

Captain K. Vaidyanathan 1102, Shishira Towers Yamuna Nagar, Andheri (West) Mumbai- 400 053 Respondent / Complainant  

2. The Special Officer Deputy Registrar Office Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., No.18, Ramanathan Street T. Nagar, Chennai 17 Respondent/ 2nd Opposite party The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant / opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,30,000/- with 18% p.a., alongwith compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.10.12.2007 in CC. No.264/2007.

 

This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 20.09.2010. Upon hearing the arguments of the appellant in person, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 
Counsel for the appellant/ Opposite party : Mr. A. Karthikeyan, Counsel Counsel for the 1st respondent/ Complainant : Mr.P.B. Sampathkumar, Counsel 2nd Respondent called absent M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court)  
1. The 1st respondent, in this appeal, as complainant, leveling deficiency of service against both the opposite parties, as if they have collected entire amount, for the sale of plot, failed to execute the sale deed, and therefore he is entitled to recover the amount paid viz. Rs.1,30,000/-, with interest thereon, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh.
 
2. As revealed by the records, the 1st opposite party, housing society, as per the cause title, is Represented by The President, . It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant, that from the year 2001, there was no President for this Housing society, and it was administered and managed by the Special Officer. The entries in the notes of the District Forum also would reveal, that no such Special Officer or the President, as the case may be, in the address given, resulting, refusal or otherwise followed by publication, then setting them exparte. Thus opposite parties have been set exparte, and an order came to be passed, against both, directing to pay a sum of Rs.130000/- with interest, as well to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh, as compensation for mental agony, which is challenged by the 1st opposite party, in this appeal.
 
3. The appeal is filed, as per the causetitle The President/ Special Officer, Trinity Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Plot No.40 (1/50), Kumudam Nagar, Mugalivakkam, Chennai- 600 116 , because of the fact, the lower court order reads, the cause title of the 1st opposite party as the President. As seen from the vakalat, available, in this appeal, only the special officer has signed, representing the 1st opposite party/ society. Thus it is seen, the 1st opposite party had no occasion, or opportunity to contest the case, represented by Special Officer, and on that basis alone, taking the entire averments in the complaint, as if correct, an order came to be passed, though it is an order based on merit, as per the Act. in the real sense, it cannot be an order on merit, because there was no consideration on rival contentions. Therefore we are inclined to allow the appeal and remit the case to the District Forum, for fresh disposal, in order to give an opportunity to the opposite party to contest the case on merit.
 
4. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.264/2007, dt.10.12.2007, and the case is remanded back to the District Forum, for fresh disposal, according to law, on merit on condition that the appellant/ 1st opposite party, shall deposit a sum of Rs.130000/-, minus the mandatory deposit, already made, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt, drawn in favour of President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), on or before 11.10.2010, failing which the order of the District Forum dt.10.12.2007, shall stand confirmed.

On complying the condition, the order shall stand set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Chennai (South) on 12.10.2010, and on the same day, the appellant/ opposite party shall file their written version, positively. The District Forum is directed, to dispose the case, within two months, from the said date, accordingly law, on merit. There will be no order as to cost in the appeal. The deposits will abide the result of the case, on merit.

   

S.SAMBANDAM VASUGI RAMANAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II MEMBER I PRESIDENT               INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/FB/Open court-