Joy George vs P.J. Sunny

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2014, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission"), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Complainant/Respondent herein has been allowed and the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") has been set aside and the Complaint has been allowed. The Petitioner, who was the Opposite Party before the District Forum was directed to pay 3,50,000/- with interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of the Complaint till the date of realization and costs of 5,000/-.

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the State Commission. From the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Complaint has been allowed by the State Commission on the ground that the Complainant, who was the Appellant before the State Commission had filed an affidavit to the effect that the vouchers, which were marked as exhibit B3 and B4 are created by the Opposite Party and signatures found therein were are not of his wife. It was the case of the Petitioner herein that the payment of 3,50,000/- has been made to the Complainant after the two cheques, which had been dishonored by the Bank were returned to the Petitioner on 23.05.2012.

We are of the considered opinion that even if an affidavit has been filed by the Complainant before the State Commission, which is by way of an additional evidence filed at the Appellate stage, the State Commission before accepting the same and taking it on record ought to have given an opportunity to the Petitioner herein, who was the Respondent/ Opposite Party before the State Commission to rebut the same.

From the record, we find that no such opportunity was given. Merely relying upon the averments made in the affidavit filed for the first time before the State Commission without giving an opportunity to rebut the same has resulted in failure of justice and therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained, the same is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide the Appeal afresh in accordance with law.

We hope and trust that the State Commission shall decide the Appeal expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before it.

This Revision Petition is disposed of with aforenoted directions. Needless to add, the State Commission shall issue fresh notice to both the parties to appear before it.