Judgement2019 01 24

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition No.RP/18/98
M/s.Karrm Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.

Through Directors
1. Sanjiv Naresh Sawant
2. Ganesh Mahadev Murkar
3. Ramakant Subhash Jadhav
4. Rupesh Murlidhar Gandhi
Having office at
Malhar Apartment, 1st floor,
Above Reliance Fresh,
Near Malhar Cinema,
Navpada, Thane (W) 400 602
Through Authorized Representative
Mr.Rohit Yashwant Muthe …..Petitioners
Versus
Mr.Santosh Shridhar Kadam

R/at Vaishnav Sai CHS
Flat no.104, Plot no.B 37
Sector -23, SeaWoods Dharave
Nerul (E), Navi Mumbai 400706 ……Respondent
BEFORE: Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member

A.K.Zade, Member
ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member
1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in consumer complaint no.CC/16/879 on
06/06/2018 original opponent M/s.Karrm Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. through
directors have filed this revision petition.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned District Forum was pleased to

direct to proceed ex-parte against the opponents. The matter was adjourned
for filing affidavit of evidence by the complainant.
1
3. Original opponents/petitioners have challenged the order on the ground
that notice was never served to the present petitioners/opponents and,
therefore, there is no question of appearing before the Learned District
Forum in consumer complaint or to file written statement. The document on
record shows that notice was issued on the address mentioned in the
consumer complaint. That notice was returned back to the address of the
Learned District Forum. Still ex-parte order was obtained by the respondent
by keeping the Learned District Forum in dark.
4. Heard Learned Advocate Nagraj Hoskeri for revision petitioners and

Learned Advocate Pravin Padave for respondent. Perused the order and
documents filed on record. It appears that the respondent had filed
consumer complaint against the present petitioners by alleging deficiency in
service. In consumer complaint the address of the opponents/petitioners is
mentioned as under:-
M/s.Karrm Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. through directors
Malhar Apartment, 1st floor, Above Reliance Fresh,
Near Malhar Cinema, Navpada, Thane (W)400602
5. As per request, the Learned District Forum issued notices to the

opponents/ present petitioners on the address mentioned in the consumer
complaint. However, notice is returned back with endorsement “Left”. The
complainant moved an application on 24/10/2017 after securing new and
correct address of the opponents/petitioners. In application new address of
Vikhroli was mentioned by the respondent/complainant. Said application
was allowed and notice was issued on the address of the respondent, which
is as under:-
24 x 7 Park, 9th floor, 901 B Tower, LBS Marg, Gandhi Nagar,
Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079.
6. Said notice was duly served. Documents of service pertaining to postal
2
department are filed on record by the respondent/complainant before the
Learned District Forum. It is pertinent to note here that location of Thane
was left by the petitioners. On 12/10/2016 the petitioners themselves
informed the respondent about shifting of office to new address but the
respondent has filed consumer complaint and mentioned the address of
Thane because said address was mentioned in the agreement executed by
the petitioners in favour of original complainant. Therefore, complainant/
respondent mentioned the address of the petitioners at Thane but ultimately,
notice was served at the address of Vikhroli.
7. The petitioners/opponents were proceeded ex-parte in consumer

complaint. Therefore, petitioners did not appear before the Learned District
Forum. The Learned District Forum did not grant opportunity to the
petitioners to participate in the proceedings and to make attack on law
points. During the course of arguments it is pointed out that the order
passed is without pecuniary jurisdiction.
8. It is always desirable that the matter should be decided on merits. If

the opportunity is granted to the petitioners to appear and file their written
statement, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent/ original
complainant. On the contrary, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is
necessary to decide the matter on merits. It is true that the complainant has
suffered mental pain and agony but complainant can be compensated in
terms of money. In the interest of justice, it is desirable to allow revision
petition. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Revision petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-
to be payable to the complainant/respondent. Payment of costs is
condition precedent.
2. Order of the Learned District Forum dated 06/06/2018 is hereby set
aside. Opponents are permitted to file their written statement within
3
30 days from the date of this order. Copy thereof be served to the
complainant/ respondent well in advance. Matter is already scheduled
before the Learned District Forum on 18/03/2019. Both the parties to
file their respective affidavits of evidence on that date.
3. The Learned District Forum is hereby directed to dispose of the
consumer complaint within six months from the date of this order,
after giving opportunity to both the parties.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 24th January, 2019.
[Usha S.Thakare]
Presiding Judicial Member
[A.K.Zade]
Member
Ms

Judgement2019 01 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgement2019 01 24

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judgement2019 01 24

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Revision Petition No.RP/18/98

M/s.Karrm Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.

Mr.Santosh Shridhar Kadam

BEFORE: Smt.Usha S.Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member

2. By the impugned order, the Learned District Forum was pleased to

4. Heard Learned Advocate Nagraj Hoskeri for revision petitioners and

5. As per request, the Learned District Forum issued notices to the

6. Said notice was duly served. Documents of service pertaining to postal

7. The petitioners/opponents were proceeded ex-parte in consumer

8. It is always desirable that the matter should be decided on merits. If

Pronounced on 24th January, 2019.

You might also like