STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/213/2023 LUIOSE T C PRESENT ADDRESS - THAZHATHEDATHU HOUSE UPPUTHODU IDUKKI,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NEDUMPARAMBIL CREDIT SYNDICATE PRESENT ADDRESS - NEAR KSRTC BUS STATION THIRUVALLA 689101,KERALA.

THE MANAGER NEDUMPARAMBIL CREDIT SYNDICATE PRESENT ADDRESS - PANICKANATTU BUILDING MUTTAM P O THODUPUZHA

685587,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 19/09/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.213/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 19.09.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.90/2022 on the files of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANT:

Luiose T. C., S/o Chacko, Thazhathedathu House, Upputhodu, Idukki (by Adv. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1.

Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate, Near KSRTC Bus station, Thiruvalla –

689 101

2.

The Manager, Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate, Paickanattu Building, Muttam P.O., Thodupuzha – 685 587

1JUDGMENT HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.90/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service in connection with the pledging of gold ornaments by the complainant with the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Thereafter, the complainant was not present before the District Commission for evidence. In the said circumstances, the District Commission passed the order under appeal, dismissing the complaint.

3. Service is complete. However, there is no representation for the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

5. It appears from the proceedings of the District Commission that the District Commission on 10.10.2022 posted the case for evidence to 08.11.2022. On that date, the complainant was absent. There was also no representation for the complainant before the District Commission on that date. In the said circumstances, the case was adjourned to 13.12.2022 for evidence. On that date also, the complainant had no representation before the District Commission and hence the District Commission dismissed the complaint as per order dated 22.12.2022. The District Commission also ordered costs of Rs.2,000/- each to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties, even though there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to order costs.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant could not appear before the District Commission on 08.11.2022 and 13.12.2022 for evidence as the appellant was suffering from ailments relating to post-Covid complications and in the said circumstances, the learned counsel has pleaded for granting one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits.

7. Having gone through the proceedings of the District Commission, we are of the considered view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter on merits. For the said reason, we are inclined to set aside the order under appeal.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed, order dated 22.12.2022 in C.C.No.90/2022 stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Commission for fresh disposal of the complaint, in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to contest the matter on merits. The appellant/complainant shall appear before the District Commission on 28.10.2025 without further notice. Needless to state that the District Commission s