| Final Order / Judgement | KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REVISION PETITION No.31/2023 ORDER DATED: 01.06.2023 (Against the Order in C.C.No.313/2020 of CDRC, Malappuram) PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT | SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER | SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER | SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES 1, 3, 4 & 9 1. | M/s Philips India Limited, Registered Office, 8th Floor, Tower-A, DLF IT Park, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata | 2. | M/s Philips India Limited, Corporate Office, 8th Floor, DLF-9-B, Block DLF Cyber City, Sector-25, DLF Phase-3, Haryana | 3. | M/s Philips India Limited, Survey No.523/3E2, 3F, 30, 3M, 4A, 4B, 5241B, 28M, 3A2, Door No.116, Chennai | 4. | M/s Philips India Limited, Southern Regional Office, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai |
(by Advs. Sreevaraham N.G. Mahesh & Sheeba Sivadasan) Vs. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/OPPOSITE PARTIES 2,5,6,7 & 8: 1. | Dr. Rani B. Chittoor, Shivakrupa Genetic Clinic, Parackal House, Vengara P.O., Malappuram – 676 304 | 2. | Rohit Sathe, President, Philip Health Systems, Philips India Ltd., 3rd Floor, Tower-A, DLF IT Park, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata – 700 156 | 3. | Health Care India, 19/1187-V, 2nd Floor, Devika Building, Chalappuram, Calicut – 673 002 | 4. | Nidhin P.N., 8/17, 3rd Floor, Sunny Side, Shafee Mohammed Road, Rutland Gate, 2nd Street, Chennai – 600 006 | 5. | Sreekumari, 8/17, 3rd Floor, Sunny Side, Shafee Mohammed Road, Rutland Gate, 2nd Street, Chennai – 600 006 | 6. | De Lage Landen Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., 20/F, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 |
O R D E R HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT This revision is directed against an order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (District Commission for short) in C.C.No.313/2020. The Revision Petitioners are the opposite parties in the complaint. The respondent herein is the complainant. I.A.No.47/2023 was filed by the Revision Petitioners raising the question of maintainability of the complaint and praying that the said petition be considered. The District Commission has ordered that the question of maintainability would be considered while passing final orders on the complaint. The Revision Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order. According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioners, Advocate N.G. Mahesh, the complainant is conducting a scanning centre on commercial basis. A medical equipment purchased for exclusive use in her clinic had developed functional issues which could not be rectified despite service by the Revision Petitioners. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that, the complainant was not entitled to maintain the complaint since her purchase was for commercial use. In view of the above, it is contended that the question of maintainability ought to have been considered as a preliminary issue as requested by the Revision Petitioners. 3. This Revision Petition is posted before us for admission. We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner. We have also gone through the records produced before us. We notice that, the complaint itself was filed in the year 2020. The petition questioning the maintainability of the complaint was filed in the year 2023 after three years. The District Commission has noted in its order that the complaint was posted for evidence of the opposite parties. The complainant had filed proof affidavit on 01.08.2022. The case had been posted for proof affidavit of the opposite parties on 22.09.2022, 11.11.2022, 23.12.2022 and 20.01.2023. It was only on 20.01.2023 that the Revision Petitioners had filed I.A.No.47/2023. Therefore, according to the District Commission, the said I.A. had been filed only to protract the adjudication proceedings and to postpone the adducing of evidence in the case. In view of the above, the District Commission has ordered that the question of maintainability would be considered at the time of passing final orders. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, we find no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the procedure adopted by the District Commission. The order under revision has also not caused any prejudice to the interests of the Revision Petitioners. For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this revision. The same is accordingly dismissed, no costs. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT | AJITH KUMAR D. | : | JUDICIAL MEMBER | BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER | K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL | |
