PRIYA MENONA Vs. SAHAI FINANCIERS AND KURIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 27th August, 2001 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP 638/2000. The complaint in the said OP was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite party claiming the Kuri amount due to the complainants. The opposite party disputed the aforesaid claim on the ground that civil suit is pending against the guardian of the minor complainant. Thereby, the lower Forum dismissed the complaint in OP 638/2000. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred by the complainant in the said OP 638/2000.

(2.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/opposite party. The Counsel for the appellant was present. It is also to be noted that registered notice was issued to the respondent intimating the date of posting of this appeal. But even after acceptance of the said notice there was no representation from the side of the respondent/opposite party. So, this Commissioner heard the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He has relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission reported in 1997 (2) CPR 245. It is submitted that the lower Forum has gone wrong in dismissing the complaint in OP 638/2000 in the light of the pendency of a civil suit as O. S. 84/2000 on the file of the Munsif Court, Chavakkad. It is further submitted that the facts of the complaint in OP 638/2000 are different from the facts in OS 84/2000. Thus, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant requested for demanding the matter to the lower Forum for consideration of the complaint in OP 638/2000 on merits.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: