KUMAR N S Vs. K BINCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the appellant-writ petitioner, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Kollam by the first respondent alleging manufacturing defect in the paper bag manufacturing machine supplied by the appellant. According to the first respondent, after spending an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs the above machine was installed and it was found that there was manufacturing defect. When the case was posted for filing version of the appellant, appellant got an adjournment and on the next posting date, as he was absent, an ex parte decision on merits was taken by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing him to pay Rs. 7,35,000/- with 9% interest from the date of the order. In addition to that, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost, were also ordered by Ext. P2 order. Though the appellant filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex parte order, it was rejected by the forum. The above petition was rejected with the following endorsement:

(2.) It is contended before us that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums are rejecting such petitions to set aside the ex parte orders on the ground that they have no power under the Act and it is argued that every Court or tribunal have inherent power to set aside ex parte order and therefore though the impugned order is appealable, this controversy has to be settled. On that ground the appeal was admitted and after the pendency of the case before this Court, it cannot be just dismissed without considering the above point.

(3.) Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") details the procedure on admission of the complaint. Section 13(2) deals with the procedure to be adopted by the District Forum. Section 13(2) and (3) of the Act reads as follows: