KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION No.26/2023
ORDER DATED: 27.03.2023
(Against the Order in I.A.No.380/2022 in C.C.No.275/2021 of DCDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
SRI. RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
SMT. BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:
| Shaji, S/o Muhammed, Plamootil House, Karinilam P.O., Idakunnamkara, Erumeli North Village, Kanjirampally Taluk, Kottayam – 686 513 |
(by Advs. S. Reghukumar & Threya J. Pillai)
Vs.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
| Rahul Raj, S/o Rajan, Puthenveetil, Karinilam P.O., Idakunnamkara, Erumeli North Village, Kanjirampally Taluk, Kottayam – 686 513 |
O R D E R
HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT
As per order dated 05.01.2023 the CDRC, Kottayam has dismissed I.A.No.380/2022 in C.C.No.275/2021. The petition had been filed by the opposite party in the complaint questioning the maintainability of the complaint. The District Commission has dismissed the said petition taking the view that the issue of maintainability would be considered at the time of final disposal of the complaint. The opposite party is before us in revision aggrieved by the said order.
According to Adv. Reghukumar who appears for the Revision Petitioner, the transaction involved in the complaint was a simple and pure sale of an immovable property. A house constructed by the Revision Petitioner had to be sold by him because of his financial difficulties. The respondents herein who had purchased the house had filed the complaint alleging that there were certain defects in the building. The contention of the learned counsel is that such sale of an immovable property would not come within the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and that the respondent herein is not a consumer under the Act. The sale deed had been produced before the Court by the complainant himself. Therefore, the question of maintainability of the complaint had to be considered as a preliminary issue. In view of the above, he seeks the issue of a direction to the District Commission to consider the question of maintainability before proceeding to finally dispose of the complaint.
Having heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, we are not able to find any error of jurisdiction in the order warranting interference with the same in revision. We notice that the complaint is of the year 2021. The order under revision is passed on 05.01.2023. Therefore, the complaint has been pending for more than two years. The District Commission cannot be found fault with for taking the view that it shall be sufficient to consider the question of maintainability at the time of final hearing of the complaint since it has already been pending for a substantial period of time. We are of the considered view that, whether the question of maintainability is necessary to be considered as a preliminary issue at the time of final hearing of the matter, is an aspect coming within the discretion of the District Commission.
For the above reasons, we find no grounds to admit this revision or to grant any reliefs.
This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN | : | PRESIDENT |
RANJIT R. | : | MEMBER |
BEENA KUMARY A. | : | MEMBER |
K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN | : | MEMBER |
SL
