Uttarakhand

StateCommission

TA/15/2

Sahid - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kanahyia Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.Amit Sharma

11 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road,
Dehradun-248121
Final Order
 
Transfer Application No. TA/15/2
 
1. Sahid
s/o Shamshad r/o Vill. Jasodapur PO.office Sultanpur The. & Haridwar.
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Kanahyia Lal
s/o Harpal Singh Vill. Peeetpur PO. Aithal, Teh. & Distt. Haridwar.
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

ORDER

 

(Per: Mr. D.K. Tyagi, Member):

 

This transfer application, under Section 17(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been moved by the applicant-opposite party. In the said application it is prayed by the applicant that it is expedient and in the interest of justice and equity that the consumer complaint No. 507 of 2014: Sh. Kanhya Lal vs. Sh. Sahid, sub judice before the District Forum, Haridwar be transferred to the District Forum, Dehradun. The transfer application has been supported with an affidavit of Sh. Sahid.

 

2.       In the transfer application the applicant has submitted that the opposite party-complainant-Sh. Kanhya Lal has filed a consumer complaint against the applicant before the District Forum, Haridwar. The complainant has not appeared before the District Forum with clean hands and had filed the aforesaid complaint by suppressing, misrepresentation and concealment of true and correct facts.  The opposite party is an advocate practicing at District Court, Haridwar. The complainant usually during the proceedings of the complaint threatens the applicant that either he should bow down to his demand or he would not let any advocate to contest for the applicant’s side.  The complainant had created such a threatening environment against the applicant that no advocate at Haridwar is willing to contest for the applicant against the complainant. The complainant is also threatening the applicant that he would indulge the applicant into false and frivolous litigations and would lodge false cases against the applicant. The applicant is a poor man and is under constant state of mental shock and terror and has a strong apprehension that the complainant would certainly transform his threats into reality. The District Forum, Haridwar is under the influence of the complainant. The applicant apprehends that he would be debarred from getting justice from District Forum, Haridwar.

 

3.       The opposite party-complainant has filed objections against the transfer application.  In the objections, the complainant has stated that he has filed consumer complaint No. 507 of 2014: Sh. Kanhya Lal vs. Sh. Sahid before the District Forum, Haridwar on the basis of deficiency of service on the part of the applicant-Sh. Sahid. The applicant has done construction work for the complainant, which is below standard and the linter of the house may fall down at any time.  The complainant and his family are in danger of their life.  The applicant has filed transfer application before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on the false and frivolous grounds and the same is liable to be rejected. The complainant has never threatened or pressurize the applicant. The applicant is free to engage  advocate in the District Forum. The applicant has already filed written statement before the District Forum, which has been prepared on the basis of legal advice of some advocate. He has also filed an affidavit before the District Forum, which was verified by one Satish Kumar, Advocate of Haridwar.  It is wrong to say that no advocate of Haridwar is doing help of the applicant. The consumer complaint before the District Forum is at final stage and to avoid the proceedings of the consumer complaint, the applicant has moved this transfer application on false grounds, which shows his malafide.  The applicant has never made any complaint orally or in writing to the District Forum, Haridwar that no advocate is ready to help him in the District Forum. The applicant has also not moved any application before the Legal Service Authority for engagement of any counsel.  It is wrong to say that the complainant has threatened the applicant to implicate falsely in some criminal cases. The applicant has never made any complaint to the District Forum regarding so called threats by the complainant. The applicant is free to prefer the appeal against any order or judgment of the District Forum. These objections are supported by an affidavit of Sh. Kanhya Lal-complainant.

 

4.       The opposite party-complainant has filed certified copy of the written statement as well as affidavit of Sh. Sahid S/o Sh. Shamshad filed before the District Forum in evidence and certified copy of the order sheets of consumer complaint No. 507 of 2014.

 

5.       We have perused the transfer application as well as objections filed by the parties and also gone through the documents filed by the complainant alongwith objections. From the perusal of the copy of the written statement as well as affidavit filed by the applicant (opposite party before the District Forum) have signatures of Sh. Sahid Hasan only.  There is no signature of any advocate on the written statement as well as affidavit filed before the District Forum. The affidavit of applicant-Sh. Sahid Hasan has been identified by Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate of Dehradun before the Oath Commissioner, Haridwar. This indicates that no advocate of Haridwar is engaged by Sh. Sahid Hasan-applicant. This fact has been mentioned in the transfer application as well as affidavit of applicant-Sh. Sahid Hasan (paper Nos. 1 to 4).  Admittedly, the complainant is an advocate practicing at District Haridwar.  According to the applicant, the complainant has created threatening environment and no advocate at Haridwar is willing to contest for the applicant against the complainant. 

 

6.       We are satisfied with the contentions made by the applicant. No prejudice is caused to the complainant, if the consumer complaint is transferred to other District Forum.  It will be in the interest of justice that the consumer complaint No. 507 of 2014; Sh. Kanhya Lal vs. Sh. Sahid may be transferred from the District Forum, Haridwar to the District Forum, Dehradun.

 

7.       For the reasons aforesaid, the transfer application is allowed.  The consumer complaint No. 507 of 2014; Sh. Kanhya Lal vs. Sh. Sahid pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar is transferred to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun for disposal of the consumer complaint in accordance with law.  Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Dehradun on 11.04.2016.  Let the copy of this order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. D. K. Tyagi, H.J.S.]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.