KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 22/2020

ORDER DATED: 14.12.2020

(Against the Order in C.C. 62/2020 of CDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

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

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Pradeep Kumar D., Niharam, Mariyapally P.O, Kottayam-686 013.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Jainamma Thomas, Kallukalam, Mammood P.O, Madapally Village, ChanganasseryTaluk, Kottayam-686 536.

ORDER

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

This revision is filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 62/2020 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short).  The revision petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the District Commission on I.A No. 134/2020 filed for deputing another expert commissioner for ascertaining certain additional aspects with respect to a construction effected on the property of the respondent.  According to the revision petitioner the additional aspects would have to be ascertained with the help of a panel of experts.  As per the order under revision the District Commission has disallowed a number of points sought to be ascertained by the revision petitioner.  Consequently only two points have been allowed to be ascertained, it is submitted.  According to Adv. Narayan who appears for the revision petitioner all the matters requested to be ascertained are necessary for a proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties.  Unless all the aspects required to be ascertained are permitted to be ascertained, the revision petitioner would not be able to prove his case that he has undertaken and completed additional construction works. 

2.  The contentions of the counsel for the revision petitioner are opposed by the counsel for the respondent.  According to the counsel for the respondent, the points required to be ascertained by the revision petitioner overlaps on many of the points on which the other experts have already submitted their opinions.  In view of the above, it is contended that any order to be passed by us may not have the effect of requiring the same matters to be ascertained by a different set of experts.  Apart from the above apprehension, according to the learned counsel, he has no objection in deputing another commissioner.  He also points out that since his son’s marriage has been fixed and is proposed to be conducted in January 2021, orders may be passed with a direction to execute the commission warrant in a time bound manner. 

3.  Heard.  Since the respective counsel do not agree on the matters that could be ascertained with the assistance of an expert panel by another commissioner, the District Commission shall address the said aspect once again.  It is necessary to be ensured that conflicting views are not brought on record on the same aspects by different experts.  In order to avoid the above, the District Forum shall