AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J. Chelameswar, C.J.—The instant writ appeal is filed aggrieved by an order dated 16th August, 2010 in I.A. No. 11396 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 30608 of 2009. The third Respondent herein purchased a vehicle known as ''Ford Icon'' car from the Appellant. The purchase was on 13.10.2005. The said purchase was made at a cost of Rs. 6,07,525/-. The third Respondent alleges that subsequently certain defects were detected in the new vehicle. Eventually the third Respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode in C.C. No. 258 of 2006. The said complaint came to be disposed of by a short order dated 12th September, 2006 which is produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:
The Complaint is for return of the price of the car or giving a brand new one car of the same value and quality on the ground of manufacturing defects. Opposite parties 1 and 2 called ex parte. Opposite parties 3 to 5 filed versions. Complainant is satisfied in getting an order against opposite parties 1 and 2. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A12 were marked. From the evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A12 the Complainant''s case is proved. In the result, the petition is allowed and opposite parties 1 and 2 are ordered to give a brand new car of the same value and quality or to pay back Rs. 607525/- and with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- to the Complainant within 1 month from today.
Aggrieved by the same the Appellant herein carried the matter in appeal to the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No. 398 of 2008. The said appeal eventually came to be dismissed by order dated 7.7.2009 on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeal and therefore the appellate Commission was not inclined to condone the delay.
Aggrieved by the said order the Appellant herein preferred W.P.(C) No. 30608 of 2009 and sought an interim order of stay of execution of the original order of the District Forum. The said application was ordered conditionally by the order under appeal and hence this writ appeal.
When the writ appeal was taken up, after hearing both the learned Counsel, this Court thought it fit to dispose of the writ petition itself instead of keeping the matter pending. The learned Counsel appearing on either side also agree for the disposal of the writ petition.
In view of the fact that the Appellant herein could not avail the opportunity of placing its defence before the original authority we deem it appropriate to set aside the order Ext.P1 dated 12.9.2006 and the consequential order Ext.P5 dated 7.7.2009 and direct the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode to examine the matter afresh after giving appropriate opportunity to both the parties. In view of the conduct of the Appellant in not properly pursuing the proceedings we also deem it appropriate that the Appellant should be directed to deposit fifty percent of the amount specified under Ext.P1 order along with costs of Rs. 500/- covered by Ext.P1 and costs of the proceedings before the appellate forum as well as this Court which are quantified at Rs. 10000/-. The third Respondent consumer would be at liberty to withdraw the costs deposited pursuant to this order along with the costs of Rs. 500/- covered by Ext.P1. He agrees not to withdraw the remaining amount during the pendency of the adjudication pursuant to this order. In view of the fact that the dispute is pending for a long time we also deem it appropriate that the entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The Appellant shall deposit the amount specified above in this order within a period of two weeks from today.
The writ appeal and the writ petition are disposed of as above.