KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO.725/2005

JUDGMENT DATED:25-10-2011

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                 :  MEMBER

Raneesh P.V,

S/o Kuttan Nair, Kannoth House,

Oathiriyad, Via Pinarayi,                            : APPELLANT

Kannur District.

(By Adv: Sri.V.Ramkumar Nambiar)

          Vs.

The Branch Manager,

Popular Automobiles,

Near Ashoka Company,                           : RESPONDENT

Mundayad P.O, Chovva,

Kannur District.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is preferred against the order dated:23^rd January 2003 of CDRF, Kannur in EP.2/02 in OP.163/99.

2.      The facts of this case can be summarized as follows:-

Appellant is the complainant in OP.163/99 on the file of CDRF, Kannur.  The said complaint was filed alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Popular Automobiles, Kannur branch in collecting excess amount from the complainant with respect to the repair effected to the complainant’s vehicle bearing registration No.KL-13-C-9749.  It was alleged that the opposite party, collected an excess amount of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant and thereby the complainant claimed refund of the said sum of Rs.65,000/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3.      Notice in the said complaint in OP.163/99 was issued to the opposite party and the same was returned unserved with the endorsement ‘closed’.  A fresh notice was issued to the opposite party and the same was also returned with the endorsement ‘name differs’.  The Forum below ordered substituted service against the opposite party by publishing the notice in a local newspaper having circulation in Kannur.  The complainant effected the paper publication and the same was produced.  The Forum below considered the substituted service as effective service and the opposite party was called in open Forum.  There was no representation for the opposite party and so the opposite party was declared exparte.

4.      Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness on his side was examined as PW2.  Exts.P1 to P4 documents were also produced and marked on the side of the complainant.

5.      On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the order dated:27^th November 2000 allowing the complaint partly.  Thereby the opposite party was directed to refund Rs.65,000/- to the complainant.  The opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service with cost of Rs.2000/-.

6.      The complainant/Decree Holder filed EP.2/02 to get the order dated:27.11.2000 in OP.163/99 executed.  Notice in the aforesaid execution petition was served on the opposite party/Judgment Debtor.  On getting the notice in EP.2/02, the Judgment Debtor (respondent herein) entered appearance and filed a petition for getting the order dated:27.11.2000 in OP.63/99 set aside.  The Forum below allowed the said petition vide the impugned order dated:23.1.2003.  The impugned order is as follows:-

“This petition is filed to set aside exparte on the ground of want of service of notice which is incorrect because publication is seen made.  Anyhow an opportunity is to be given to the party to contest the case for interest of justice.  So, the petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.250/-. For payment 30.1.2003.”

It is against the said order the present appeal is filed by the complainant in OP.163/99.

7.      Notice in this appeal