KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.74/2023

ORDER DATED: 01.11.2023

(Against the Order in I.A.No.488/2022 in C.C.No.153/2022 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/1^ST OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Thomas P. Makil)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/2^ND & 3^RD OPPOSITE PARTIES:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

          This Revision is filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.153/2022 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (the District Commission for short).  The Revision Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 27.06.2022 by which the District Commission has ordered that the question of maintainability of the complaint shall be considered at the time of final hearing, after adducing evidence on both sides.  The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that, the complaint is not maintainable for the reason that the 1^st respondent who is the complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short).  The complainant had purchased a Bolero Camper 4WD PS manufactured by the 2^nd respondent.  The vehicle was fitted with tyres manufactured by the 3^rd respondent.  According to the complainant, after driving the vehicle for around 200km, he noticed a patch on the tyre.  He therefore approached the Revision Petitioner.  It was found that the tyres were of first quality and had no cause for any damage.  On 19.05.2022 the tyres were inspected by the personnel of the 3^rd respondent at the service centre of the Revision Petitioner.  The inspection revealed that the tyres were good and did not suffer from any defects.

          2.       On 24.05.2022, the tyres were again inspected by the Field Engineer of the 3^rd respondent at the service centre of the Revision Petitioner in the presence of the 1^st respondent.  Thereafter, the 1^st respondent brought his vehicle to the showroom of the Revision Petitioner and abandoned the same in front of the showroom causing much hindrance to the operations of the Revision Petitioner at his showroom.  According to the Revision Petitioner, the 1^st respondent had purchased the vehicle for commercial use.  The vehicle is registered as a goods/commercial vehicle and accordingly has a yellow registration number plate.  The 1^st respondent is running a motor workshop at Varissery in Perumbaikad Village.  The fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint itself.  The name of his workshop is “Classic Automobiles”.  He has his own employees and trained technicians specialised in service of various models of automobiles which include not only engine repairing but also painting and other works.  He had advertised that they provide “24/7 accident services”.  It is for such roadside assistance that he had bought the disputed vehicle.  Therefore, according to the Revision Petitioner on the pleadings and documents, it was clear that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose.  In view of the exclusion under Section 2(7) of the Act, he is not a consumer.  Therefore, the Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.488/2022 alleging that the complaint was not maintainable.  According to him, evidence was adduced by way of proof affidavit and six documents.  From the side of the Revision Petitioner, the documents included colour photographs of the advertisement board exhibited by the 1^st respondent.  However, after hearing, the District Commission has ordered that the question of maintainability would be considered at the time of final hearing of the complaint, after evidence is adduced.  The contention of the Revision Petitioner is that the District Commission has without any justification declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.

          3.       We have heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner.  We are not satisfied that, there has been any error of jurisdiction on the part of the District Commission warranting an interference in Revision.  It is within the discretion of the District Commission to decide whether to consider the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue or not.  In the present case, in spite of the evidence produced by the Revision Petitioner and the contentions put forward, the District Commission has felt it necessary to relegate a determination on the question of maintainability till the matter is finally decided on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties.  The District Commission cannot be found fault with for having taken the said view. 

          For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this revision or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, no costs.

SL