State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Rep By ... vs S.Raj S/O. N.Sridharan on 31 October, 2023
Daily Order IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3. Present: Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT Revision Petition No.125 of 2023 (Against the Order dated 15.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.38/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai) Orders, dated:31.10.2023 1. M/s. Abinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, New No.9, Old No.3, Radhakrishnan Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. 2. Mr. D. Abishek, F3, Syndicate Residency, Dr. Thomas First Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.... Revision Petitioners/ Opposite parties 1 & 2. - Versus - S. Raj, S/o. Mr. S. Sridharan, First Floor, Flat No.3, Block B, Vikas Hill View Apartments, Darga Road, Zamin Pallavaram, Chennai - 600 043 Represented by his Father & General Power of Attorney. ... Respondent /Complainant. For Revision Petitioners/ Opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. S. Muthuvenkatraman For 1st Respondent / Complainant : M/s. S. Namasivayam This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for both parties and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:- O R D E R
R.Subbiah, J. - President. (Open Court) This Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai in C.C. No.38/2022, whereby, the District Commission has closed the evidence on the side of the Revision Petitioners herein/ Opposite parties 1 & 2 for non-filing of proof affidavit and consequently, adjourned the case to 29.11.2022 for filing written argument of the complainant.
2. Both present.
3. Heard both parties.
4. The evidence on the side of the Revision Petitioners herein/ Opposite parties 1 & 2 was closed by the District Commission, Tiruvannamalai for non-filing of proof affidavit. Hence, the present Revision Petition. When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners herein/ Opposite parties 1 & 2 have submitted that on 15.11.2022, the Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 was out of station and could not attend the hearing on the said date. Therefore, the evidence on the side of the Revision Petitioners herein/ Opposite parties 1 & 2 was closed on 15.11.2022. Thus, he prays for an opportunity to re-open the case for the purpose of filing proof affidavit in order to give a chance to the opposite parties 1 & 2 to contest the case on merits. When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 pending will further delay the matter. Irrespective of the reason assigned by the opposite parties 1 & 2 for non-filing of proof affidavit, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, this Revision Petition could be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the District Commission so that, the Revision Petitioners / opposite parties 1 & 2 will have a chance to contest the case on merits.
5. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 15.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.38/2022 by the DCDRC, Tiruvannamalai is set aside, and the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall file their Proof Affidavits and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.38/2022 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.
R. SUBBIAH, J.
PRESIDENT KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2023.