Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
M/S ORCHID BUILDERS – Appellant
Versus
LE-PARK ROYAL HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT LTD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 38796/2016
Evidence - Consumer Protection - Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Section List - The court held that petitioners must seek appropriate remedies before the Consumer Commission to reopen proceedings for evidence rather than directly approaching the court.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought relief against the closure of evidence in a consumer complaint case, arguing that the Commission did not allow them to adduce further evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had an available remedy of applying to the Commission to reopen evidence, which they had not pursued.
Issues: Whether the court should intervene in the complaint proceedings before the Consumer Commission when there is an existing remedy for the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that proper remedies should be sought through the appropriate forum before approaching higher courts.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions for petitioners 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 the 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 does not have a case such an exercise was undertaken 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
