KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
TRANSFER APPLICATION No. 01/2022
ORDER DATED: 05.07.2022
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.RANJIT. R : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER:
Prasad T.R., VNRA-B 100, Kailasam, Kurisumuttom, Peyad P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 573.
(Party in person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- M/s. 3G Mobile World, Kings Way Building, Door No. 5/3287, Bank Road Junction, Mavoor Road, Calicut-673 001.
- M/s. Sony India Private Limited, A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
The complainant in C.C. No. 538/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (District Commission for short) has filed this petition seeking a transfer of his case to Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, he had purchased a mobile phone from Kozhikode and that is the reason why he had to file his complaint there. His allegation is that, in order to protract matters, the case is being adjourned at the instance of the opposite party. He has also alleged that the District Commission is being misled to grant adjournments at the instance of the opposite parties.
2. Since the allegations were serious, we called for a report from the District Commission. As per communication dated 12.05.2022 it has been reported that the petitioner has already been examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 documents have been marked on his side. Thereafter, I.A. No. 392/2018 was filed by the petitioner for having the mobile phone examined by an expert. The said petition was allowed and an expert has been appointed to examine the mobile phone. Since his report has not been received, he has been reminded by the District Commission to submit his report expeditiously.
3. The above being the circumstances reported by the District Commission, we are not satisfied that there is any basis for the complaints of the petitioner in this case. It was on the application of the petitioner that an expert was appointed. The evidence in the case has already been recorded and what remains is only to have the matter finally heard, after obtaining the report of the expert. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the petitioner pursues the matter before the District Commission, Kozhikode itself.
For the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to transfer C.C. No. 538/2015 of the District Commission to Thiruvananthapuram. This Transfer Application is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
