KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVIEW APPLICATION No. 51/2023 in APPEAL No. 347/2023

ORDER DATED: 03.10.2023

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVIEW PETITIONER:

Naveen & Sreeraj, SN Enterprises, Door No. 12/202/112, Madhukarai, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, Pin-641 105 now at 307-E, Perummal Kovil Veethi (WD 25), Madhukarai Market, Tamil Nadu-641 105.

(By Adv. Jayakrishnan D.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sameena N.K., W/o Shareef, Thudiyankavil House, Marancheri P.O., Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram.

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an application filed under section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking review of the Judgment in Appeal No. 347/2023 dated 19.06.2023.  The petitioner was the opposite party in C.C. No. 169/2022 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (will be referred to as District Commission as short).

2.  On 24.04.2023 the complaint was allowed and the petitioner was directed to refund Rs. 33,500/- being the cost of the oil tank sold to the complainant, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.

3.  The case of the complainant before the District Commission was that he had purchased an 8 mm SS Prime Tank of 1000 litre capacity on 02.04.2022 for an amount of Rs. 33,000/-.  But the tank was defective.  Though the petitioner was asked to effect repairs there was no response.  So the complainant alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The complaint was allowed and the impugned order was passed against which the appeal was filed.  On 19.06.2023 this Commission had dismissed the appeal on the reason that no useful purpose would be served by admitting the appeal.

4.  In the review petition the petitioner would allege that there are errors apparent on the face of the record.  According to the petitioner in the appeal he had furnished his earlier as well as the present address.  But the observation in the judgment is that the petitioner had shown the same address as shown in the complaint.  It is also alleged that there were no materials on record to observe that the petitioner was evading the notice.  Apart from the above he would contend that no consumer dispute was involved in the transaction.

5.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner.  Perused the records in appeal No. 347/2023.

6.  Provision contained in section 50 could be invoked when an error apparent on the face of the record is made out.  According to the petitioner, no notice was served to him as he was doing business in a different address.  It was obligatory on the part of the complainant to serve notice to the opposite party as mandated in section 65(3) of the Consumer Protection Act. Without compliance of this mandatory provision the District Commission had passed the order setting the petitioner ex-parte.

7.  On a perusal of the records it is seen that the appeal was dismissed on a finding that the address of the appellant was the very same address in which notices were issued by the District Commission.  This finding is an error apparent on the face of the record on the reason that the appellant had shown his present address as well as the earlier a