KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.71/2022

ORDER DATED: 09.12.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.39/2020 in C.C.No.46/2018 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

(by Adv. Narayan R.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The revision petitioners are the petitioners in I.A.No.39/2020 in C.C.No.46/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short the ‘District Commission’).

2.       The respondent herein is the respondent in I.A.No.39/2020 and the complainant before the District Commission.

3.       The respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the revision petitioners.  The said complaint was dismissed for default, against which the complainant filed restoration application, which was also dismissed by the District Commission.  Thereafter, the complainant filed a fresh complaint before the District Commission as C.C.No.46/2018.  The revision petitioners filed I.A.No.39/2020 before the District Commission challenging the maintainability of the said complaint.  However, the District Commission dismissed I.A.No.39/2020 holding that since the earlier complaint was not dismissed on merits, the second complaint was maintainable.  Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

4.       Notice to the respondent had been already served.  However, there is no representation for the respondent.

5.       Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.  Perused the records. 

6.       The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the District Commission had passed the order disregarding the decision of the National Commission in Installment Supply Limited vs. Kangara Ex-Servicemen, reported in 2007 (1) CPJ 34 NC and hence the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained.  In Installment Supply Limited vs. Kangara Ex-Servicemen(supra), the National Commission held that after an award is passed by the arbitrator,  no complaint before the Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service is maintainable. However, the District Commission did not consider the said aspect before passing the order impugned.        

7.  There should be some bonafides in filing the new complaint, submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.  In this case, after dismissing the complaint, restoration application was filed instead of resorting to file appeal against the order of the District Commission.  After dismissing the restoration application, the present complaint was filed and hence, the complainant had no bonafides in filing the second complaint, is the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

8.  It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that when a second complaint was filed on the same set of facts, the complainant was bound to explain why the earlier complaint could not be pursued and was dismissed in default, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company vs Srinivasan reported in (2000) 3 SCC 242.   However, no such explanation was given in this case when the second complaint was filed.  It appears that the decision of the National Commission in Installment Supply Limited vs. Kangara Ex-Servicemen (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Company (supra) were not considered by the District Commission while passing the order impugned.  Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be said to be legal, proper and correct and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to dispose of I.A.No.39/2020 in accordance with law and in the light of the decisions cited above. 

SL