| Final Order / Judgement | KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.238/2016 JUDGEMENT DATED : 30.10.2024 (Appeal filed against the order in C.C.No.344/2015 on the file of DCDRC, Kottayam) PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT | SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
APPELLANT: | Dr. Vivish Thomas, Managing Partner, Babas Mental Crusher & M-Sand Unit, Industrial Development Plot, Poovanthuruthu, Kottayam – 686 012 |
(by Adv. Prabhu Vijayakumar) Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. | Popular Motor Corporation, JCB Division, Near Sree Narayana Temple, Ponnurunni P.O., Vyttila, Ernakulam – 682 019 | 2. | Popular Motor Corporation, JCB Division, Kanakkari P.O., Ettumanoor, Kottayam – 686 632 | 3. | JCB India Limited, 23/7, Mathura Road, Ballabgarh, Haryana – 121 004 | 4. | JCB India Limited, B-1/1-1, 2nd Floor, Mohan Co-operative Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044 | 5. | JCB India Limited, Talegaon Floriculture & Ind. Park, Village-Ambi, Vavlakh Umbhre, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune – 410 507 | 6. | JCB India Limited, C/o Manna Flour Mills, Durgapur Expressway, P.S. Dankuni, P.O. Dankuni Coal Complex, Hoogly – 712 310 |
(by Advs. Sunil C.G. & Saji Mathew) JUDGEMENT HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.344/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (for short ‘the District Commission’) who in this appeal challenges the order passed by the District Commission dismissing the complaint. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the District Commission ought to have returned the complaint for being presented before the proper Commission, once the District Commission had found that the District Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. However, in the present case, the District Commission instead of returning the complaint for presenting before the proper Commission, dismissed the complaint. 4. Having gone through the order impugned, we are satisfied that the above said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be sound. Once the District Commission had entered into a finding that the District Commission had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the District Commission ought to have returned the complaint to the complainant for being presented before the proper Commission. Since instead of returning the complaint to the complainant, the District Commission had dismissed the complaint, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same. 5. In the result, this appeal stands allowed, setting aside the order passed by the District Commission in C.C.No.344/2015 and the District Commission is directed to take back the complaint in to its files and dispose of the complaint in accordance with law, in the light of the direction in this judgement. We make it clear that we have not entered into any finding with regard to the merits of the case or the question of jurisdiction of the District Commission, as it was not necessary to decide the said aspects in view of the submission at the Bar. JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR | : | PRESIDENT | K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL | |
