KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 294/2021
JUDGMENT DATED: 29.10.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. No. 43/21 in C.C. 192/2020 of DCDRC, Pathanamthitta)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Rishi Jacob Thomas, S/o P.C. Thomas, Peediakkal House, Behind Marthoma College, B Tech Villa No. 8/81(5), Kuttapuzha Village, Kuttapuzha P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta -689 103 through his mother Deenamma Thomas.
- Deenamma Thomas, W/o P.C. Thomas, Peediakkal House, Behind Marthoma College, B Tech Villa No. 8/81(5), Kuttapuzha Village, Kuttapuzha P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta -689 103
(By Adv. P.C. Thomas)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Beno Varghese, S/o Varghese, Mathirayil House, Theepany Bhagom, Thiruvalla Village, Thiruvalla P.O., Pin-689 101, Managing Partner/Director, B Tech Group, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. S. Reghukumar & Adv. Threya J. Pillai)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The first appellant is the complainant and the second appellant is the mother of the complainant, who filed the complaint for the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (for short “the District Commission”). The said complaint was taken on the files by the District Commission as C.C. No. 192/2020. The respondent is the opposite party before the District Commission.
2. The respondent filed I.A. No. 43/2021 before the District Commission praying for dismissing the complaint alleging that the complaint was filed without any authority and that the complaint was barred by limitation. The District Commission as per order dated 16.07.2021 allowed the said interlocutory application and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable on the ground that the person who represented the complainant had no authority to file the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard.
4. The respondent herein filed the above interlocutory application praying for dismissing the complaint on two grounds, which are: (1) the complaint was not filed by an authorized person and (2) the complaint was barred by limitation. The District Commission did not consider the second ground mentioned above.
5. The District Commission found that the complaint was filed by the second appellant, without having any proper authorization of the original consumer, to act for him as an agent. The District Commission was of the view that in order to act as an agent, proper authorization of the original consumer was necessary at the time of filing the complaint. The District Commission found that the appellant could not be treated as an agent of the consumer. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable, as the person who filed the complaint was not having due authorization.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank V. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2020 KHC 6120 : 2020 (3) SCC 455 held that the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act is very wide and it not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services.
7. In the present case, the mother filed the complaint for the son, as the son was abroad. The mother is residing in the building in question. Therefore, the mother would perfectly come under the purview of ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. United India Insurance Company (supra). Consequently, the finding of the District Commission in this regard cannot be sustained. For the said reason, we set aside the order passed by the District Commission and remit the case to the District Commission with a direction to the District Commission to consider all issues, other than the issue which has been already decided in this judgment, in accordance with law.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed. The order 16.07.2021 passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to take back the complaint into its files and proceed with the complaint in accordance with law and in the light of the direction in this judgment.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
