BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                   BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                                 Tmt  Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                         MEMBER

R.P.NO.3/2021

(Against CCSr.No.79/2021 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

T. Ravikumar

Advocate

9/12, Shastrinagar 11^th Cross Street                   

Shastrinagar                                                                (In person)

Adyar, Chennai – 600 020                                      Petitioner/ Complainant

                  Vs.

 Commissioner

Corporation of Madurai

Madurai – 625 002                                                 Respondent/ Opposite party

          Mr.V. Shankar   : Amicus Curiae

                   This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant praying to take the unnumbered complaint in CCSr.No.79/2021 before the District Commission on file, and issue notice to the opposite party. 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for petitioner, this commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH,   PRESIDENT    (Open Court)

  1.       This Revision Petition is filed praying to take the unnumbered complaint in CCSr.No.79/2021 before the District Commission Chennai (South) on file, and issue notice to the opposite party. 

  2.       The case of the complainant is as follows:

 The complainant was born on 21.1.1967 in Christian Mission Hospital, Madurai.  The hospital authorities had registered the birth of the complainant in the respondent’s corporation and the registration No.107/23/1967.  The complainant had now approached the respondent for a copy of the birth certificate, for which he paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards search fee on 11.11.2020.  The opposite party, after having collected the search fee, had failed to issue the birth certificate.

          Therefore the petitioner herein has filed a complaint before the District Commission, Chennai (South) for the following relief:

          i)        Issue the birth certificate to the complainant (3 copies) with the name of the complainant incorporated in the certificate.

          ii)       To computerize all the birth and death certificates, within a span of 1 year from 1.4.2021.

          iii)      Give compensation of Rs.50000/- to the complainant for mental  physical agony.

          iv)      To give costs to the complainant.

3.       The said complaint was filed by the complainant vide CCSr.No.79/2021 before the District Commission, Chennai (South) on 15.2.2021.  The Registry of the District Commission had returned the said complaint on raising query with regard to the maintainability of the complaint apart from other returns on 16.2.2021.  On compliance of return the petitioner had represented the same on 18.2.2021.  Subsequently, the said unnumbered complaint had been placed before the District Commission, for deciding the question of maintainability. 

4.       When this petition came up for trial before this commission, Mr.V.Shankar, Advocate had been appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the court on behalf of the Petitioner.

5.       The amicus curiae had submitted his report stating that the matter is pending before the District Commission for deciding the maintainability of the complaint.  The Revision petitioner had not taken into mind that the District Commission had thought it fit and appropriate to pass a detailed speaking order, which could not be accomplished due to want of quorum.  Though the Consumer Protection Act 2019 U/s.36(2) enumerates that on receipt of a complaint made under Sec.35, the District Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with or reject the same, provided the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was filed.  Eventhough there will be always some exceptions which squarely applicable to the complainant also. 

6.       In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion, that the District Commission, Chennai (South) had not kept the complaint unattended, instead it is being placed before the bench, and had been heard twice.  Eventhough for some clarification the matter was adjourned on 20.4.2021. Subsequently, for the next two hearings i.e., on 7.7.2021 and 17.8.2021 the complainant was not present before the District Commission for submitting his arguments.  Without deciding the admissibility, if the complaint is taken on file, will ultimately end up in dismissing the complaint.  There is no unjustifiable delay on the part of the District Commission in deciding the admissibility.  The Revision Petitioner can meritoriously argue before the District Commission for maintainability.

7.       In view of the above, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No cost.

            S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                        R. SUBBIAH

                          MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT