IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

TMT.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER

C.M.P.No.130/2019

in

F.A.Sr.No.216/2019

(Against the order in C.C.No.29/2017, dated 06.03.2019 on the file of the District

Forum, Trichirappalli)

FRIDAY, THE 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2021.

Tmt. Sulotchana,

M/s. Shiny Home Care,

No.16/8, Akila Garden, 1^st Cross,

Akila Nagar, T.V. Koil.,

Tiruchirappalli – 620 006. Petitioner/Appellant/Opposite Party

-Vs-

R. Krsna Murti,

S/o. M. Rajagopal,

Porp. M/S. Rockfort Paints,

Plot No.36, Sidco Industrial Estate,

Opp. Bharathidasan University, Mathur,

Tiruchirappalli – 622 515. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant/ Opposite Party: Mr. A.John Vincent, Advocate.

For Respondent/Respondents/Complainant : Appeared, party- in-person

This petition coming before us for final hearing on 26.03.2021 and on hearing

the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission

made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Appellant/ /opposite party to

condone the delay of 31 days in preferring the First Appeal before this Commission

against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Trichirappalli made in C.C.No.29/2017, dated 05.03.2019, allowing the complaint.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as

they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission,

Trichirappalli.

3. The complainant who is the respondent herein filed a consumer complaint in

C.C.No.29/2017 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

Trichirappalli against the opposite party who is the petitioner herein alleging deficiency

in service by not returning the advance amount of Rs.9000/- paid towards the servant-

maid nominated by the opposite party to look after his mother at his own village and

also claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. The learned District

Commission after hearing both sides, allowed the complaint directing the opposite party

to return Rs.9000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from

03.09.2016 to 27.09.2017 and also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for mental

agony and Rs.3000/-towards cists of the proceedings.

4. Aggrieved against that order of the learned District Forum, the opposite party

the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal in F.A.132/2019 before this Commission

with a delay of 31 days along with the petition in C.M.P.No.130/2019 to condone the

said delay which was allowed by this Commission on 20.10.2019. Subsequently, against

the order of this Commission passed in C.M.P.No.130/2019, dated 20.10.2019, the

respondent/complainant preferred a revision petition in R.P.No.2574/2019 before the

Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi where the

revision petition was dismissed on 17.12.2019 and the respondent/complainant was

directed to appear before this Commission for hearing on 31.01.2020 to decide the case

on merits and accordingly the petition was taken up for hearing to decide the petition

on merits.

5. In the petition affidavit, the petitioner has averred as follows;-

The respondent/complainant filed a complaint in C.C.No.29/2017 before the

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Trichirappalli against the opposite

party/petitioner herein alleging deficiency in service by not returning the advance

amount of Rs.9000/- paid for the servant-maid nominated by the opposite party to look

after his m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document