IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SMT. S.SANDHYA RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
R.B.T/ C.C.No. 02/2023
ORDER DATED: 6-03-2023.
BETWEEN
- Talakkottur R David ,
TC 34-671-1, GV Raja Road
Beach P.O.,Village Kadakampalli
Thiruvananthapuram 695007. : Complainants
2.Alice David
TC 34-671-1, GV Raja Road
Beach P.O.,
Village Kadakampalli
Thiruvananthapuram 695007.
AND
Manager, ICICI Bank,
M.G.Road, Pulimoodu Branch,
Thiruvananthapuram 695 001. : Opposite Party
(By Adv.Rajeev C.)
ORDER
S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been originally filed before the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as C.C.142/2021. As per the order dated 22.12.2022 of the Hon’ble Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C. 142/2021, this complaint has been transferred from Thiruvananathapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Hence notice was issued from Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the parties for appearance before the Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 03.03.2023.
On 02.03.2023, this Commission received an email statement from the complainant stating as follows amongst others:
‘As per the Consumer Protection Act 1986 Chapter III, 12-4 that when a case is “Admitted” it cannot be “transferred to any other Court, Tribunal etc.” and that as per the amended Consumer Protection Act of 2019 “On the application of the complainant or if its own motion, the State Commission may, at any stage of the proceeding, transfer any complaint pending before a District Commission to another District Commission within the State if the interest of justice so requires”.
Besides the above, the complainant challenges the credentials of the President of the Thiruvananthapuram DCDRC and has stated that the High Court of Kerala and Supreme Court decide whether the President of the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram has necessary qualifications to adjudicate this case and 1000 of pending cases before him without the required experiences and education and that let the Supreme Court decide the case based on laws passed by Parliament of India. The complainant has further challenged that Kollam DCDRC lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and has specifically mentioned that he will not be arguing the case at Kollam DCDRC even if a video conference is allowed to him on 03.03.2023.
Things being so, when the case was called on 03.03.2023, the complainant remained absent and there was no representation for the complainant either. Opposite party filed fresh Vakkalath along with the relinquishment letter of the previous Counsel. The Counsel for the opposite party was present and hence heard the counsel for the opposite party.
As this complaint has been transferred from Thiruvananthapuram DCDRC to Kollam DCDRC, notice has been issued to both the parties. On the date posted for appearance of the parties and for further proceedings subsequent thereto, the opposite party’s counsel was present but the complainant failed to appear.
This Commission has considered the statement filed by the complainant in detail. On going through the same it could be seen that the reasons mentioned for the absence of the complainant is unjustifiable, unreasonable and not at all admissible for this Commission to dispense with his attendance and adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day to proceed with the case. We find no plausible reasons justifying his absence either in the statement referred supra or when the case was called out.
In the light of the statement filed by the complainant, we are of the view that since the complainant deliberately remains absent before this Commission, it is apparent that the complainant is not intending to proceed further with the matter before this Commission and is consciously and purposefully abstaining from the same. For a proper disposal of the complaint, the presence of the complainant is required. But as per the email statement referred supra, the complainant has very adamantly stated that he will not be arguing the case before this Commission. In such a circumstance, this Commission cannot indefinitely wait for the appearance of the complainant for further proceeding with the complaint. Hence as the complainant is intentionally absent, this Commission is left with no other option than to dismiss the complaint.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6th day of March 2023.
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI
MEMBER
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
