National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Zee Learn Limited vs Keshava Murthy D.M on 23 February, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3496 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 22/08/2016 in Appeal No. 1905/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ZEE LEARN LIMITED AND HAVING IT'S REGIONAL OFFICE AT:NO 49/5, RAMA ARCADE,OPP.AG INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, BOWRING HOSPITAL ROAD,SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KESHAVA MURTHY D.M S/O. LATE MUNICHANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 169,2 ND MAIN 3RD CROSS,BHOVIPALAYA MAHALAKSHMIPURAM MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560086 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Reeva Gujral, Advocate Alongwtih Supriya Jain, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 23 Feb 2017 ORDER This revision is directed against the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, "the State Commission") dated 22.8.2016 in first appeal No.1905/2016.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint in respect of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in relation to a franchisee agreement entered into between the parties. The opposite party was ex-parte before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 14.7.2016 took the view that since the services of the opposite parties were hired/availed for commercial purpose, the complainant was not a consumer. The complaint was, therefore, dismissed on the aforesaid technical ground.
3. Being aggrieved of the dismissal of the complaint, the respondent/complainant approached the State Commission, Karnataka in appeal. The State Commission without opting to issue notice of the appeal to the petitioner/opposite party allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the District Forum concerned with a direction to consider the case on merits after issue of notice to the opposite parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because it is violative of principle of natural justice. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since with the dismissal of the complaint a valuable right has accrued in favour of the opposite party, the State Commission ought to have issued notice to the opposite party before allowing the appeal.
5. There is a merit in the submissions made by the petitioner. Instead of issuing notice to the respondent, in order to avoid further delay, we have perused the record as also the order of the District Forum. The State Commission has remanded the matter back to District Forum to decide the complaint afresh on merit. The apprehension of the opposite party is that as the opposite party was ex parte before the District Forum, the District Forum may not allow the opposite party to file reply. The aforesaid apprehension can be addressed by disposing of the revision petition by making it clear that District Forum shall decide the complaint after taking written statement of the opposite party on record and considering all the pleas raised by the parties.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER