1.      Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Aggarwal as Power of Attorney Holder of Renu Goel.

2.      Above Transfer Application has been filed for transferring Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2021, Renu Goel Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, filed by the applicant, from State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi preferably, and or any Hindi language spoken State like Uttraakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana.

3.      The applicant has raised the following grounds for transfer of the aforementioned appeal:

a)      Because learned State Commission, U.P. is either not aware of the Consumer Protection Act, or it is doing so for some greed, as if it is passing the orders against the prevalent Act and the Law.

b)      Because the applicant does not believe that the learned State Commission will give justice to the applicant.

c)      Because the Applicant has a fundamental right to get justice.

d)      Because the learned State Commission has perhaps met with the respondent and wants to be benefitted and wants to decide the case in favour of the respondent. The respondent is rich and powerful person and he wants to grab lakhs of rupees of the widow and therefore, the Commission does not want to give justice to a widow.

e)      Because learned State Commission, U.P. did not follow the provision of the Act nor comply the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission.

4.      In order to substantiate the aforementioned grounds, applicant has mentioned following facts:

(a) The applicant filed Transfer Application No.16 of 2021 before this Commission for transferring Appeal No.256 of 2021 from State Commission U.P. at Lucknow to State Commission, Delhi.  In the said Transfer Application notices were issued by order dated 27.12.2021, fixing 04.02.2022. Till then, further proceedings pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. at Lucknow in Appeal No.256 of 2021 has been stayed. In spite of the order dated 27.12.2021, the State Commission is proceeding with the appeal;

(b) The applicant in the capacity of Power of Attorney Holder of Renu Goyal filed Consumer Complaint No.33 of 2021 before State Commission, U.P in which State Commission U.P. by order dated 22.11.2021 has directed Renu Goyal to appear in person or through Advocate. Although the Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organisations, before the Consumer Form), Regulations, 2014 permit appearance of the Authorised Representative, Agent, Power of Attorney Holder etc.;

(c) The complainant filed CC No.33 of 2022, Punam Goyal complainant as Power of Attorney Holder Vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority, in which State Commission U.P. vide order dated 30.03.2022 issued notice to the opposite party fixing 31.05.2022;

(d) The applicant filed Appeal No.283 of 2022 on 20.04.2022 against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad dated 14.03.2022 in Misc. Case No.266 of 2020. The said appeal was dismissed with cost of Rs.10000/- by a State Commission U.P. by order dated 06.05.2022. The said order has been challenged in this Commission in Revision Petition No.595 of 2022, which is still pending.

(e) The appellant as a Power of Attorney Holder of Anju Aggarwal, filed FA No.284 of 2022 from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ghaziabad passed in Misc. Case No.265 of 2020. The said appeal was dismissed on 06.05.2022. The said order has been challenged by Anju Aggarwal in Revision Petition No.668 of 2022 before this Commission which is still pending.

5.      On the basis of these facts, the allegations have been made against State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P.

6.      We have considered the arguments of the applicant. So far as Appeal No.256 of 2021 is concerned, it has been listed on 30.05.2022.  On that day Ved Prakash Aggarwal did not appear before the State Commission and the case was adjourned for 16.09.2022. Stay order was up to 04.02.2022. The Commission can always direct the party in person to appear before it, in order to verify as to whether, the case was filed by correct person. Only on the basis of some orders passed in other cases no inference can be drawn against President/Presiding Member of State Commission that they were not aware with the Consumer Protection Act or it is doing so for some greed. There is no material on the record to substantiate the allegations. The opposite parties are statutory authority and it is not believed that the officer of the government will approach for an order in their favour. The allegations amount to contempt. By making wild contemptuous allegations, the applicant wants to transfer the case near his residence, which appears to be mala fide. It amounts to forum shopping. It is not a sufficient ground for transferring the case.

7.      The transfer application is rejected.