DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 31/03/2021
CC/65/2021
Ramadasan K.N.,
S/o Narayanan K.A.,
Kundammar house,
Kappadam, Karimba Post,
Palakkad – 678 597 - Complainant
(By Adv.E.Sureshkumar)
Vs
1.Balu A.M.,
Sky View Cable Network,
Karimba, Palakkad – 678 597
2.Ramachandran Nair,
Managing Director,
Dwan Support Pvt.Ltd.,
39/40, 12A, D4 Diwans Tower,
Karimpatta Cross Road,
Pallimokku, Kochi – 682016 - Opposite Parties
(By Adv.R.Ramdas)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- The complainant is aggrieved by the non grant of cable connection to his residence by the first opposite party. The first opposite party is an agent of the second opposite party.
- The complainant was desirous of availing a cable connection from the first opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that the first opposite party demanded Rs.8,000/- from him. But he had not paid this amount. The first opposite party refused to provide him connection on the ground that a line was not drawn through the area of the complainant. Arraying a number of reasons as to why drawing a line to the complainant’s area is possible, the complainant filed a complaint unsupported by any documents which was numbered by this Commission as CC/65/2021 on 31/3/2021.
- The complaint was posted for hearing on maintainability to 14/5/2021. The next effective posting was on 8/7/2021. On that day the presiding officer has made an order like follows:
“Counsel is appeared for the complainant. Filed vakkalath. Filed fresh complaint and not pressed the former complaint. Admitted the complaint. Issue notice to opposite parties. For return of notice 6/8/2021”.
- The new memorandum of complaint filed by a new counsel who appeared for the complainant had enclosed (1) a letter dated 20/4/2021 (2) a communication dated 19/4/21 from opposite party No.1 (3) a lawyer’s notice dated 24/4/2021 addressed to the counsel for complainant (4) a lawyer’s notice dated 24/4/2021 issued to the complainant (5) a communication dated 21/4/2021 issued from OP2 to the counsel for the complainant herein (6) Photocopies of 6 photographs (7) a letter dated 1/5/2021 from the ward member and (8) a complaint dated 30/6/2021 from the complainant to the District Collector, Palakkad.
- It is to be noted that the complaint was filed on 31/3/2021. The said memorandum of complaint was without any cause of action. Thereafter, during the months of April, May & June, the complainant had been busy generating a cause of action for a complaint. With all the generated documents, the complainant filed a memorandum of complaint on 5/7/2021. This subsequent memorandum of complaint metamorphosised to take the place of the memorandum of complaint filed on 31/3/2021.
- This is not a case of amendment of a complaint. Here, a proceeding that initiated without any cause of action, as on the date of filing, was through manipulation, to make it seem legitimate by initiating a series of events culminating in the withdrawal of memorandum of complaint filed on 31/3/2021 and replaced by a fresh memorandum of complaint on 5/7/2021.
7. It is clear from a reading of the entire records that this complaint lack any merits as on the date of its filing. We do not find any merits in the conduct of the
complainant. Admittedly it was this Commission that granted admission to the subsequent memorandum of complaint. It is true that the Act provides for a very strict mandatory procedure to be adopted for admitting a complaint. Casual approach to the process of admission has been deprecated by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in its decision rendered in FON-ESS India (P) Ltd Vs. The KSCDRC & Ors (2006(3) KLT 500) and Kerala Hotel & Restaurant Association, Thrissur Vs. The DCDRF (2012(3) KLT 277). But unfortunately situations arise whereby the ground realities are different. Sometimes, the President and Members of a Commission might make mistakes and admit a complaint for no fault of theirs. It may sometimes be owing to their naiveté or occasioned due to misguidance
Such circumstances call for correction of course by this Commission, once it transpires that the entire conduct of the complainant was wrought with illegality. Law does not expect that once illegality occurred due to an oversight on the part of this Commission, we are bound to turn a blind eye to it or that our hands would be bound to inactivity. This Commission, once being aware of the mistakes occurred, can very well correct its course and adopt corrective measures. This course correction adopted is made in tune with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in Indian Bank V/s M/s.Sathyam Fibres (India) Pvt.Ltd. (1996(5) SCC 550).
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we dismiss the complaint as being bereft of any natural cause of action and the complaint not being a consumer of the opposite parties.
Pronounced in open court on this the 8th day of July, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
NIL
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
NIL
Cost : No costs allowed
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 11/07/2022
Despatched on:
