KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.72/2023

ORDER DATED: 01.11.2023

(Against the Order in I.A.No.346/2022 in C.C.No.196/2022 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Asokkumar J.S.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS/2^ND OPPOSITE PARTY:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          The 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.196/2022 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (the District Commission for short) is the Revision Petitioner.  The Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26.09.2022 dismissing I.A.No.346/2022 filed by him questioning the maintainability of the complainant.  It was contended that, the complaint was not maintainability 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 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 is adduced in the 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 allegedly charged as excess interest.  The allegation is that, the Revision Petitioner was guilty of unfair trade practice by 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 determining the jurisdiction of the District Commission is the value of goods and services paid as consideration.  However, as rightly found by the District Commission, the value of services against which the complaint is made is only Rs.5,65,035/-(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 their business being one where huge amounts of profits are generated, the same would fall outside the category of a business 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.       The question regarding joinder of causes of action as well as the objection regarding nature of the transaction are left open to be considered at the time of final disposal of the complaint, if any further evidence on the said facts are let in by the parties.

In above view of the matter, we do not find any grounds to admit this Revision Petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  This Revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL