Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/244/2022

G. Devarajan, s/o. late J. Gopalakrishnan, sathiyanarayanan st, sembium, chennai-600 001 - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The managing director, tamilnadi state marketing corporation ltd, ggandhi irwin bridge road, egmo - Opp.Party(s)

m/s. G. Devarajan

26 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.S.KARUPPIAH      ... JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

F.A. No.244 of 2022

(Against the Order, dated 17.02.2022, in SR No.257/2021 on the file of  the DCDRC, Chennai-North)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:   26.05.2022

G.Devarajan,

S/o. (late) J.Gopalakrishnan,

25/12. Sathiyanarayanan St.,

Sembium, Chennai 600 011.          … Appellant/Complainant

 

vs.

 

1. The Managing Director,

Tamilnadu State Marketing

  Corporation Ltd.,

Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

 

2.Tamilnadu State Marketing

  Corporation Ltd.,

TASMAC Shop No.285,

Supervisor,

No.2. Kumaran Nagar Main Road,

Kumaran Nagar, Near Ranibai Colony,

Chennai 600 082.

 

3.Tamilnadu State Marketing

     Corporation Ltd.,

TASMAC Shop No.285,

Salesman,

No2. Kumaran Nagar Main Road,

Kumaran Nagar, Near Ranibai Colony,

Chennai 600 082.                 … Respondents/Opp. Parties.

                Appellant, appearing party-in-person.

 

This Appeal is coming before us for hearing today and, after hearing the complainant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.      (Open Court)

 

             The present first appeal has been filed as against the order, dated 17.02.2022, passed by the DCDRF, Chennai-North, in SR No.257/2021, whereby, the complaint filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by the District Commission at the  SR Stage.

 

             2.  On the allegation that the OP/TASMAC Liquor Shop collected more than the actual price for the liquor purchased by him, the complainant filed the case before the District Commission. The docket orders of the District Commission shows that on 28.10.2021, by issuing check-slip for rectifying the defects, the matter was posted to 19.11.2021, on which date, the complainant was absent and the matter stood adjourned to 23.12.2021 for rectifying the defects and once again, over no-sitting on that date and for rectifying the defects, the matter was adjourned to 20.01.2022, on which date, the complainant was absent, whereupon, it was posted finally to 17.02.2022 for clarification regarding maintainability of the complaint. From  the impugned order, dated 17.02.2022, it is seen that, after adverting to the averment made by the complainant to the effect that, by opening about 5000 TASMAC liquor shops all over Tamil Nadu, the Government is deriving crores of rupees as income and it has virtually turned the citizens to drunkards, and after pointing out that the complainant, claiming to be a social activist, himself went to the TASMAC Liquor Shop and purchased the liquor, the District Commission  has observed that, since the complainant failed to provide details about the liquor brand, receipt for purchase  and the price-list of the TASMAC related to the date of purchase, a cheque-list was issued to him by the Office of the Commission for compliance, however, despite sufficient respite, he did not come forward to rectify the defects enumerated in the check-list, so as to entertain his complaint. It could be further seen from the impugned order that, by making a further observation that it is apparent that the complainant used to purchase liquor at a time when the pandemic spread was swift in the State, the District Commission has recorded that the complainant threatened the Presiding Officer of the Commission by addressing him in a singular slang that, if the case is not taken on file, he would complaint to the higher authorities as if the President of the Commission has received bribe from the OPs.   With the above observations and recordings, ultimately, the District Commission dismissed the complaint at the SR stage on the ground that there is no reason or cause of action to take it on file. Hence, the present appeal.

 

             3. Heard the complainant appearing party-in-person.

       The complainant states that, on most occasions during the pandemic, the case was taken up through video conferencing and, at times, there was no quorum, thereby, he had no reasonable opportunity to present his case. According to him, there are no defects in the papers presented by him before the District Commission and, that being so, in a totally arbitrary manner, the District Commission rushed to dismiss the complaint, hence, the said order is liable to be interfered with.

 

             4. After examining the impugned order, we are of the view that dismissal of the case based on merits at the SR Stage may not be a proper exercise.  If the defects were not rectified despite affording opportunities and grant of sufficient time coupled with any absence/no representation on the side of the complainant, the only course left open is to reject the case at the SR stage after listing the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal’ and the Commission cannot proceed to dismiss the case on the basis of merits.   Hence, the impugned order of dismissal cannot be sustained and it is but proper to direct the District Commission to re-initiate the process and take the case on file if it is otherwise in order.  

        At the same time, it must also be pointed out that the conduct of the complainant, as seen from the impugned order, in addressing the Presiding Officer with a threatening tone is highly deplorable and condemnable. Once a litigant comes to a forum seeking remedy, he is bound to go by the practice and procedure involved in filing/moving the case as well as contesting the matter, in which course, at all times, he shall address the Forum with the decorum and dignity it commands.  If the complainant is aggrieved by any order passed by the District Commission, always the appellate remedy is available to him and, for the reason of an adverse order, he cannot resort to any reprehensible conduct of misbehaving with the Presiding Officer.  The complainant is cautioned to conduct himself properly before the Forum and he is reprimanded that, if he would once again indulge in any such bad conduct, the same would be viewed seriously.

 

             5. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 17.02.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Chennai North, in SR No.257 of 2021, with a direction to the said Commission to take the Complaint on file, if it is in otherwise order and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a reasonable time-frame.

 

 

S.KARUPPIAH                                               R.SUBBIAH

(JUDL. MEMBER)                                         (PRESIDENT)

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/MAY/2022.