STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA REVISION PETITION NO. SC/32/RP/82/2022 null NICKSON SEBASTIAN PRESENT ADDRESS - MADAVANA HOUSE CARMEL LANE CHATHIATH ROAD PACHALAM P O ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682012 ,KERALA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus M/S SBN BUILDERS AND DESIGNERS PRESENT ADDRESS - KAVALACKAL HOUSE MANJUMMEL P O ERNAKULAM 683501 ,KERALA.

THOMAS K SEBASTIAN PRESENT ADDRESS - KAVALACKAL HOUSE MANJUMEL P O ERNAKULAM 683501 ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE PETITIONER:

NICKSON SEBASTIAN, In-Person FOR THE RESPONDENT:

M/S SBN BUILDERS AND DESIGNERS , In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No. 82/2022 ORDER DATED: 25.02.2025 (Against the Order in I.A.No.206/2022 in C.C.No.355/2012 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

Nickson Sebastian, S/o Late M.E. Sebastian, Madavana House, Carmel Lane, Chathiath Road, Pachalam P.O., Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 012 (by Adv. Mathew G. Vadakkel)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. M/s SBN Builders & Designers represented by Tressa Rebacca M.X., W/o Thomas K. Sebastian, Kavalackal House, Manjummel P.O., Ernakulam – 683 501

2. Thomas K. Sebastian, M/s SBN Builders & Designers Kavalackal House, Manjummel P.O., Ernakulam – 683 501 (by Adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai and Adv. Parvati M. Pai)

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 355/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short the ‘District Commission’).

2. The revision petitioner filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant filed I.A. No. 206/2022 requesting to permit the complainant to mark the commission report in O.S. No.388/2011 of the Munsiffs Court, Ernakulam. The said application was dismissed by the District Commission, against which this revision has been filed.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

4. It appears that the complainant earlier wanted to take out a commission which was dismissed by the District Commission. The said order was challenged before this Commission in R.P. No.02/2016. As per the order in R.P. No.02/2016, this Commission dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant, which was the reason stated by the District Commission for dismissing I.A. No.206/2022.

5. We have heard both sides, and we are of the view that since the evidence is not yet closed, it is only just and proper to grant an opportunity to the complainant to introduce the commission report marked in the Civil Suit between the same parties, as a document in the complaint. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the evidentiary value of the said document, as it is the duty of the District Commission to ascertain the evidentiary value of the said document at the time of final disposal of the complaint.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, the order in I.A. No. 206/2022 stands set aside, I.A. No. 206/2022 stands allowed, and the District Commission is directed to permit the revision petitioner to mark the report of the commissioner referred to in I.A. No. 206/2022, as a document of the revision petitioner.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SL ..................

SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR PRESIDENT