V. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. M/S.WING COMMANDER P.K.THOMAS
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2010-1-4
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on January 18,2010

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Thanikachalam J. - (1.) The respondent in this Revision Petition as complainant, filed a case against the opposite party/Revision petition, claiming a sum of Rs.2 lakhs or as per the report of the Commissioner be ordered and for certain other reliefs, accusing the opposite party as if he had committed deficiency in the construction of the building, which was opposed.
(2.) Admittedly, on the basis of the petition filed by the complainant, a Commissioner was appointed, he has filed a report, for which, objections were also filed, thereafter, enquiry proceeded and when the matter was posted for order by the district Forum, the opposite party moved the District Forum to reopen the case, probably to appoint an another Commissioner, to assess the value of the extra work said to have been done by the opposite party and its value. After hearing, the petition was (to reopen) rejected against which, this Revision Petition is filed.
(3.) The case came to be filed, complaining deficiency in the year 2008 and after prolonged enquiry, when the matter was posted for orders, this petition came to be filed. Already a qualified engineer was appointed to assess the value of the building, whether it is additional construction or otherwise who was assisted by an Advocate Commissioner and he has filed a report, giving value of the building which include additional construction said to have been made by the opposite party. Therefore, we feel no further appointment of Commissioner, to find out the value of the additional construction need be appointed and the matter can be decided from the Commissioner's report available where the value also would be available, and it is for the District Forum to decide the matter after hearing either parties. In view of the above discussion, the case need not be reopened for the purpose of appointing a Commissioner. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that even the parties were not given sufficient opportunity to advance the argument and hurriedly the case was closed. This grievance could be redressed by giving a direction to the District Forum, for which, the case need not be reopened which would protract the proceedings. The Act contemplates speedy disposal of the case even prescribing time for disposal. This being the position, if this kind of reopening petitions are allowed, thereby, the parties are permitted to drag on the case for ever that will deprive the every purpose of the Act and in this view also, we are declined to allow the Revision Petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.