IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

M.P.No.05/2021

in

C.C.No.36/2018

TUESDAY, THE 31^st DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

1. S.Seetharaman,

S/o R.Shankaran,

Authorised Signatory of

Visvas Promoters (P) Limited,

84, TPK Road, Andalpuram,

Madurai – 625 003. 1^st Petitioner/1^st Opposite Party

2. M/s.Visvas Promoters (P) Limited,

84, TPK Road, Andalpuram,

Madurai – 625 003. 2^nd Petitioner/2^nd Opposite Party

-Vs-

1. T.R.Ramesh,

S/o T.Rengasamy,

F-201, Shanthi Sadan.

Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. 1^st Respondent/1^st Complainant

2. Geetha Ramesh,

W/o Ramesh,

F-201, Shanthi Sadan.

Kochadai, Madurai – 625 016. 1^st Respondent/1^st Complainant

Counsel for Petitioners-1 & 2/ Opposite Parties-1&2 : Mr. S. Parthasarathy, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondents-1&2/Complainants-1&2 : Mr.A.Haja Mohideen, Advocate.

This petition coming before me for final hearing on 16.08.2021and 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 petitioners/opposite parties to receive the

written version filed along with this petition by condoning the delay of 333 days in filing

the same.

2.

The consumer complaint was filed by the respondents herein. The

respondents herein had also filed an application in M.P.No.18/2018, wherein the 2^nd

respondent herein sought the leave of this Commission to permit her to represent that

1^st respondent as well. This Commission dismissed the said application for non

production of the original Power Deed. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed yet

another petition with original Power Deed and this Commissionto allow the same and

thereafter the complaint was taken on file and numbered.

The respondents also preferred another application in M.P.No.65/2018

seeking to appointment of advocate Commissioner the same was allowed and a warrant

was issued for the inspection by the advocate Commissioner. Since the advocate

Commissioner have not filed his report within time stipulated by this Commissionvide

its docket order dated 12.12.2019 had directed the advocate Commissioner to return

the warrant, in diary entry this Forum had not directed the petitioners herein to file

their reply statements pending the report that ought to have been filed by the learned

advocate Commissioner.

The petitioners were eagerly await the report of the advocate Commissioner in

order to bring in essential facts pertaining to the dispute in the reply statements. In fact

the counsel on record had prepared the reply statements immediately, after the

complaint was served, the reason for non filing of the same was only due to the

reasons that report of the advocate Commissioner was pending. The petitioners

endeavor was to assist the Forum in eliciting all and proper facts that were to be

brought on record by the learned advocate Commissioner.

3. In this petition the delay of 333 days as occasion in filing the opposite parties

version/statements hence the statement on record may kindly be taken by condoning

the delay. The counsel for the respondents/complainants makes an endorsement in this

application that the petition may be allowed on terms on 16.08.2021.

4. Point for consideration is:

Whether the delay of 333 days in filing the written version has to be

condoned or not?

5. Point: Both sides heard. The relevant records perused. The

respondents/complainants filed the consumer complaint on 23.11.2018 and it was

ordered to taken on file on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document