Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
M/S ORCHID BUILDERS – Appellant
Versus
LE-PARK ROYAL HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 38705/2016
Remedy - Consumer Protection - Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - The court emphasized the importance of pursuing available remedies to reopen evidence before the Commission, thus underscoring procedural rights and the need for proper applications.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the decision of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to close evidence without allowing them to present additional evidence, leading them to seek relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the petitioners should utilize the proper remedy available under the Commission's rules by applying to reopen evidence, as they had not yet undertaken this course of action.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could seek relief from the court given that they had not applied to reopen evidence before the Consumer Commission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the available remedy to apply for reopening the evidence must be pursued before seeking judicial intervention.
Final Decision: Writ petition is disposed of with direction to apply for reopening evidence.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in Ext.P1 complaint filed by the first and second respondents before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners have filed written statement against Ext.P1 complaint. Second petitioner was examined as t he witness of opposite parties. Petitioners filed Ext.P3 document schedule and Ext.P4 additional witness schedule to adduce further evidence. According to petitioners, the Commission did not permit the petitioners to adduce evidence and rather closed the evidence and posted for judgment. These are background facts persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.
3. I am not prima facie impressed or satisfied to entertain this writ petition, since the remedy available to the petitioners is to make a proper application before the first respondent to reopen the evidence, secure orders and adduce evidence. Petitioners have a case that, petitioners does not have undertaken such an exercise before the first respondent.
4. Therefore, if the petitioners make any application before the first respondent for reopening the evidence, same shall be considered by the first respondent, in accordance with law, irrespective of the fact that an order was passed closing the evidence.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
