Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

TA/3/2024

C. K. RAJENDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

C K RAJENDRAN, PARTY IN PERSON

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH      ... PRESIDENT             

 

Tr. OP No.03/2024

 

(Of RBT/CC.No.50/2024/DCDRC, Namakkal in C.C. No.28/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

                                                              

                                                                     Orders dated:14.08.2024

 

C.K. Rajendran,

S/o. Kesavan,

No.7D, Sedanthottam,

G.N. Mills Post,

Coimbatore – 641 029.                                        … Petitioner/Complainant.

 

- Versus -

1. The Branch Manager,

    Central Bank of India, Kalapatti Branch,

    No.28, Sri Vare Towers,

    Opposite SITRA, Avinashi Road,

    Civil Aerodrome Post,

    Coimbatore – 641 014.

 

2. The Regional Manager,

    Central Bank of India, P.B.No.557,

    Central Bank Building

    14-15, Variety Hall Road,

    Coimbatore – 641 001.                     … Respondents /Opposite Parties.                      

 

Petitioner/ Complainant                  : Party in person

For Respondents/Opposite Parties   : M/s. T.M. Hariharan.

 

     This Petition is listed today and after hearing the arguments of the petitioner in person and Counsel for respondents and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

         The petitioner herein, who is the complainant in RBT/CC/50/2024 on the file of the DCDRC - Namakkal, has filed this Application, seeking to transfer the aforesaid Complaint to the file of the District Commission at Nilgiris.

        2.  Heard both sides.

             3. It is seen that the petitioner originally filed C.C. No.28 of 2023 before the DCDRC, Coimbatore, and that, after hearing both sides, when the matter was ripe for orders, he had filed a Memo suspecting the integrity of the lower Commission which impelled it to submit the matter before this Commission for passing appropriate orders administratively, for transfer. It is in that background, the case came to be transferred to the file of the present District Commission at Namakkal and re-numbered as RBT/CC No.50 of 2024.

    4. Now, it is the grievance of the complainant that when he attended the online proceedings before the District Commission – Namakkal, he urged for recording his Memo of Objection and such plea was out-rightly rejected and, due to such unfair approach, he has lost his hope in the said Commission and, on that basis, he seeks for transfer of the case to the file of the District Commission at Nilgiris.

5. Per contra, it is the argument of the other side that the petitioner is habitual in seeking transfer of his case for no good purpose and the reasons assigned by him for the second-round transfer would divulge his actual conduct that he is taking the Forums for granted and hence, the OP is liable to be dismissed.

6. Upon considering the arguments and perusing the materials made available, I am not inclined to entertain the plea of the petitioner since, in my opinion, he has no locus standi at all to seek the relief of transfer anymore.  When he initially sought for transfer of the complaint/CC No.28 of 2023 that was originally filed on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore, his grievance was that, after re-posting the matter ‘for orders’ on 28.11.2023, the said Commission proceeded on the same date to suo motu order re-opening of the case for clarification, without even issuing Notice to him.  But, the fact remains, on 28.11.2023, the complainant did not turn up at all for the proceedings and, in that given scenario, the District Commission deemed it necessary to re-open the case for clarification, which exercise is well within its procedural discretion. That being so, the complainant, who was absent on the relevant date, cannot expect the District Commission to do everything suiting his convenience and  to issue him every time a Notice whenever he remains absent, for the next hearing.  Despite the aspect that the grievance of the petitioner arose from his own absence, upon the matter administratively placed by the District Commission - Coimbatore, by taking note of the fact that the complainant is a senior citizen and that he does not feel comfortable with the said Commission, purely in the interests of justice, it was ordered that the case be transferred to the District Commission at Namakkal.  Now, once again, the complainant seeks for transfer with some strange allegations that the District Commission was in a hurry to dispose of the case and that his Memo expressing dissatisfaction to the effect that he had lost faith in the present District Commission, was declined to be recorded.  It seems, the petitioner wants the Forums to conduct the proceedings when it is convenient for him to appear and to hear him without any interaction or interception and also, he impudently expects to wait till he comes back after his absence, that too, after being called upon through a Notice, else, he would assume so many things to lose faith in the Forum and rush for transfer, which repulsive conduct is highly condemnable. Judicial Forums are not market places to show one’s presence leisurely to strike deals; rather, they are precincts where the conduct of the parties are governed & regulated by rules and procedures that are meant for strict adherence.   A litigant presenting his case as a party-in-person should be more careful about the progress of the case without any room for default, particularly when he is called upon to present his arguments and, at no stretch of imagination, he can be allowed to take advantage of his own inaction so as to dictate terms to the forum in the matter of conducting the proceedings or to question exercise of its procedural discretion. As already stated, on the strength of his age-factor and his status as a senior citizen as well as in the interests of justice, the petitioner’s past plea for transfer was positively considered by this Commission and his conduct of once again seeking transfer on flimsy grounds and in filing vexatious memos only reflects that he absolutely lacks bona fides.  Looking at the highly deplorable conduct of the petitioner, this Commission has no hesitation to dismiss the Transfer OP, holding it devoid of any merit.

7. In fine, the Transfer OP is dismissed and the District Commission, Namakkal, is directed to proceed with the case and to dispose it of on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, of course, after fully hearing both sides, if not so heard already.

                

                                                                                R.SUBBIAH, J.

                                                                                 PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2024.