AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 222 wordsTHE appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagercoil, dated 15-11-93 in LA. No. 51/93, in O.P. No. 279/93. THE Petitioner Complainant is the Appellant.
THE Petitioner/Complainant has filed the above O.P. claiming damages for alleged deficiency in the construction of the building. He has also filed the above Interlocutory Application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property, note down the features and submit a report. THE District Forum has dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act to appoint a Commissioner. Hence this appeal. No doubt, under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, there is no specific provision for appointment of any Commission for local inspection. But, there is no bar to the appointment of such a Commission in the interest of justice, especially with the consent of both the parties. A Commissioner appointed in the instant case will help the Forum to decide the point of alleged deficiency in the construction in a fair and reasonable manner. The Learned Counsel appeared for the Respondent has no objection.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Forum for appointment of a Commission. No costs. Appeal allowed.