AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent, namely, Jippu Varkey filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner Jacobite Syrian Cathredel, seeking to reconstruct his family tomb in the church. The consumer complaint having been allowed, by the District Forum vide its order dated 31.10.2014, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the concerned State Commission, challenging the order passed by the District Forum. The aforesaid appeal being Appeal No.28/2015 came to be dismissed in default, vide order dated 5.6.2015. Instead of challenging the said order before this Commission, the petitioner filed an application before the State Commission seeking, restoration of the appeal. That application was dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 2.12.2015. Revision Petition No.2095 of 2016 has been filed challenging the order dated 2.12.2015. However, the order whereby the appeal was dismissed in default has not been challenged in R.P. No.2095 of 2016.
In the meanwhile, the State Commission, vide its order dated 6.9.2016 directed the petitioner to cooperate with the complainant/respondent to execute the order of the District Forum. Revision Petition No.2980 of 2016 has been filed challenging the aforesaid order of the State Commission.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent who appears in person. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though technically speaking he may have to amend the R.P. No.2095 of 2016 in order to challenge the order dated 5.6.2015 whereby the appeal was dismissed in default, no useful purpose would be served from adopting the said course of action when the respondent is present and has come all the way from Kerala in order to contest these revision petitions. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner and feel that the ends of justice would be met if R.P. No.2095 of 2016 is considered as a petition challenging the order of the State Commission dated 5.6.2015.
For the reasons stated in the R.P. No.2095 of 2016, I am satisfied that the absence of the petitioner before the State Commission on 5.6.2016 was neither deliberate nor contumacious. The order of the State Commission dated 5.6.2015 and consequently its subsequent orders dated 2.12.2015 and 16.9.2016 are set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost to the complainant/respondent. It would be pertinent to note here that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has already been paid to the complainant/respondent while restoring the R.P. No.2095 of 2016 vide order dated 25.10.2016 read with the earlier order dated 11.8.2016. Ordered accordingly.
The parties shall appear before the concerned State Commission on 14.2.2017. On that date, the State Commission shall proceed to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and shall then decide the same within a period of two months thereof. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.