KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.734/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 19.04.2024

(Against the Order in C.C.No.01/2023 of CDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Party in person)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by Sri. Talakkottoor R. David, being party in person against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (the District Commission for short) in C.C.No.01/2023 by dismissing the complaint.

2.       The complaint was filed by the appellant before the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram as C.C.No.72/2021 against one Rajasekhar Madiraju seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.2,18,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) being the amount received from the appellant.

3.       In the complaint it was alleged that the opposite party had proposed to make a movie based on the experiences of the complainant in USA.  A written agreement was also executed.  On account of the insistence of the opposite party the complainant had paid him Rs.2,18,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only).  But later, the complainant came to know that the intention of the opposite party was to cheat the complainant by making unlawful enrichment for himself.  So he had filed a civil suit and a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

 4.      Though the opposite party had received notice, he failed to file the version within the statutory period.  Since the District Commission did not reject the version filed beyond the statutory period, the complainant had filed a revision before the State Commission and obtained an order directing the District Commission to consider the question as to whether the written version filed by the opposite party was within the statutory time limit or not.  But the District Commission, without abiding with the direction issued by the State Commission had transferred the case to the District Commission, Kollam.  According to the Petitioner, the District Commission, Kollam has no jurisdiction to consider the matter.

5.       Notice was issued to the respondent/opposite party.  Though notice was served on the respondent, there was no representation. 

6.       Heard the Petitioner.  Perused the records.

7.       The complaint filed by the appellant was transferred by the State Commission to the District Commission, Kollam as per order dated 22.12.2022 on the basis of a request made by the President of the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellant had raised very serious allegations against the President of the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram doubting his integrity and challenging his educational qualification.  Since such allegations were raised, the President of the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram had expressed their inability to adjudicate the dispute and accordingly the request was made.

8.       As per Section 48 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short) the State Commission is having ample authority to transfer any matter pending before any of the District Commission to another District Commission within the State if the interests of justice so requires.

9.       The appellant was not willing to understand the implications of the order passed by the State Commission in transferring the case.  If the appellant is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission he has to file a revision before the National Commission.  Without resorting to such a procedure, the appellant cannot raise a contention that the District Commission, Kollam has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. 

10.     On going through the records, it could be seen that though a transfer was ordered, no notice was issued to the appellant and that is why he was not aware about the transfer ordered to the District Commission, Kollam.  The District Commission, Kollam was inclined to dismiss the complaint on the reason that the complainant had deliberately remained absent.

11.     The appellant appeared in person.  He is a senior citizen who is having a wrong notion that the State Commission has no authority to transfer a case from one District Commission to another without an application by the complainant.  Section 48 of the Act gives ample authority to the State Commission to transfer a case from one District Commission to another if the interests of justice requires such a step.  The appellant was aggrieved on account of the transfer of the cases from the District Commission, Thiruvananthapuram to the District Commission, Kollam and he was under a strong belief that such a transfer would never confer any jurisdiction to the District Commission, Kollam to adjudicate the matter.  A false impression of a litigant cannot be a ground to deprive him from seeking an adjudication on merits. 

12.     On consideration of the entire materials on record, we are of the considered view that the appellant shall be afforded with one more opportunity to conduct the matter afresh.  In the result we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the District Commission and remand the matter to the District Commission, Kollam.  The appellant shall appear before the District Commission, Kollam on receipt of notice from the said Commission. 

13.     The District Commission, Kollam before proceeding further should consider as to whether the version filed by the opposite party was within the statutory period. No costs.

SL