KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.75/2023

ORDER DATED: 01.11.2023

(Against the Order in I.A.No.196/2022 in C.C.No.196/2022 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Advs. S. Reghukumar & Threya J. Pillai)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          The Revision Petitioner is the 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.196/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (the District Commission for short).  The complaint is filed by the respondents 1 and 2.  The Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26.09.2022 dismissing I.A.No.347/2022 filed by him questioning the maintainability of the complainant.  It was contended that, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission on account of three reasons.  In the first place, it was contended that there were two complainants who had filed the complaint jointly.  Therefore, there was misjoinder of causes of action.  Secondly, since their case was that they had pledged gold ornaments and had availed a loan of Rs.53,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs), the said amount which is the subject matter, exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission.  The third contention was that since the loan was availed for business purposes, the same was a commercial transaction.  The District Commission found that, though the complaint was filed by two persons, whether there was actually a joinder of causes of action could be determined only after evidence was adduced in this case.  Next it has been found that though the total amount of loan availed was Rs.53,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs), the dispute in the case was only regarding an amount of Rs.5,67,035/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Thirty Five), an amount alleged to have been charged as excess interest.  The allegation is that, the Revision Petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice in charging excess interest.  Since the disputed amount was well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, it has been found that the complaint was maintainable and the petition filed by the Revision Petitioner has been dismissed. 

2.       According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, under Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short), the amount that would determine the jurisdiction of the District Commission is the value of goods and services paid as consideration.  However, as rightly found by the District Commission, value of the services against which the complaint is made is only Rs.5,67,035/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Thirty Five) which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission.

3.       It is not in dispute that in the complaint itself it has been specifically averred that the business conducted by them was for their livelihood.  Though the counsel for the Revision Petitioner has contended that the said business where huge amounts of profit are generated would fall outside the category of a business conducted for earning livelihood, there is no evidence available to warrant such a conclusion at this stage of the proceedings.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion of the District Commission that the complaint was maintainable.

4.       According to the Revision Petitioner he is the Brand Ambassador of the Manappuram Finance.  He had no role in the transaction that forms the subject matter of the complaint.  Therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice could be attributed against him.  Since he is an unnecessary party to these proceedings, it is contended that he should be struck off from the party array of the complaint.  According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, even if it is assumed that he was part of a misleading advertisement, any action against him could only be taken by the Central Consumer Protection Authority.  In view of the above, it is contended that the District Commission ought to have allowed the petition and struck his name off from the complaint.

5.       With respect to the contention that the Revision Petitioner herein was only a Brand Ambassador who had no role in the disputed transaction, the District Commission has found that, the Revision Petitioner would also become liable if it is ultimately found that he was also privy to the unfair trade practice alleged.  It cannot be presumed that the District Commission would pass any order exceeding its authority as apprehended by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner.  It is true that the punishment prescribed can be imposed only by the Central Consumer Protection Authority, but the pecuniary liability if any that may arise can certainly be fastened on the Revision Petitioner also.  At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to draw a conclusion one way or the other, on the above aspect.  Therefore, we are not satisfied that it is necessary to strike off the name of the Revision Petitioner from the complaint, at this stage.  If it is found that the Revision Petitioner had been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation, recompense could be made by awarding appropriate costs which we are certain, the District Commission would do.

In the light of the above discussion, we find no grounds to admit this Revision or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  The Revision Petition is therefore dismissed, no costs.

SL