RESSWELD ENGINEERS Vs. JAYARAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s Pressweld Engineers, OP -1 before the State Commission, have filed this appeal against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No. 34/1999. The State Commission has allowed the complaint of Shri S. Jayaram Reddy, Proprietor Ramesh Engineering Works, holding the present Appellant/OP-1 and M/s. Equip Sales/OP-2, jointly and severely, liable to refund Rs.19,75,000/- to the Complainant with interest at 12% from the date of delivery of the machine in dispute in November, 1997 and thereafter to take back the machine. It is however reported by the Registry that no appeal has been filed on behalf of OP-2. Therefore, the impugned order, in so far as it applies to OP-2, has acquired finality.

(2.) The appeal has been filed with delay of 33 days which, considering the explanation given by the appellant, is condoned. In the course of the proceedings before this Commission on 16.11.2010 the present appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution but was subsequently restored on 26.4.2013. Mr. P.V. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant/OP-1 and S. Nagraj Reddy for Respondent No.1/Complainant have been heard. The record of proceedings before the State Commission, as submitted before us, has also been perused carefully.

(3.) A significant ground raised in the Memorandum of Appeal is that on 8.4.2005 the State Commission had dismissed the complaint for non prosecution. By a subsequent order the complaint was restored, even without notice to the OPs. Perusal of the record of proceedings before the State Commission shows that the dismissal for non prosecution took place on 8.4.2005, in the presence of the counsel for OP-1. The matter next came up on 28.7.2005 and 5.12.2005. The marginal note made in the proceedings of 5.12.2005 also shows that in the meanwhile the complaint had been restored. On 5.12.2005 the matter was adjourned to 9.12.2005. The impugned order was dictated and pronounced on 9.12.2005. From this it is clear that the State Commission had first dismissed the complaint, then restored it and thereafter passed the impugned order. In the process, it had reviewed its own decision.