DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 27/10/2023
CC/291/2023
Aneeshkumar,
Sreemangalath House, Attur P.O,
Panjal, Thrissur- 680583. - Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
- Santhanavally Alias Pettamma Alias Jithumol,
W/o. Kannan, D/o. Dakshayani,
Palakkal Veedu, Kizhakumpuram P.O,
Mannur, Palakkad.
2. Dhakshayani,
W/o. Late Kunchan
Palakkal Veedu, Kizhakumpuram P.O,
Mannur, Palakkad.
3. Vasanthakumari,
W/o. Kuttikrishnan N.R,
Kundukavil Veedu, Akavenda,
Mannur, Palakkad.
4. Kanakavally,
W/o. Swaminathan, Thirikkali Veeu,
Kizhakumpuram P.O, Mannur, Palakkad.
5. Santhakumari,
W/o, Rathakrishnan, Kizhakkeppurakkal,
Manakkambat, Kamba Road, Mankkampadam,
Parali Via, Palakkad.
6. Pramesh Alias Pramosh Alias Mani Alias Surendran
S/o. Dhakshayani, Palakkal Veedu,
Kizhakkumpuram, Mannur , Palakkad.
7. Reena P.K Alias Ponnuvamma,
D/o. Dhakshayani
Palakkal Veedu, Kizhakkumpuram,
Mannur , Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(Notice not issued to O.P.s)
O R D E R O N A D M I S S I B I L I T Y
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant seeking to execute the terms and conditions of an alleged commercial agreement entered into between the OPs and the complainant.
2. Opposite parties are the mother-in-law and relatives of the complainant. Per complainant, at the time of the wedding of his wife’s niece, he parted with his family jewellery for handing over as dowry for the niece. At the time of handing over of the jewellery, an agreement was reduced to writing whereby the opposite parties (2nd O.P. to be specific) agreed to return the gold upon the younger child of the complainant attaining majority. Presently the complainant’s younger daughter had attained majority. This complaint seeks enforcement of the said agreement dated 29/5/2026 signed by the 2nd O.P. alongwith its amended extended endorsement dated 26/3/2007 signed by rest of the opposite parties.
3. Complainant alleges that this complaint is maintainable before this Commission as many legal experts had advised him that this complaint was maintainable before this Commission.
4. Taking into account the nature of pleadings and the documents submitted in support of his pleadings, this case was numbered and posted for considering its admissibility.
5. We went through the pleadings as well as the documents submitted by the complainant. It can be seen that the agreement dated 29/5/2006 as well as the addenda dated 26/3/2007 are recitals and understandings or an arrangement reduced to writing between the parties thereto who are family members for use of gold ornaments. The transactions therein are not at all commercial in nature and this complaint does not come within the ambit of a dispute as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.
6. The complainant and the opposite parties herein are not consumer and service providers respectively as contemplated under the Act. Dispute, as pleaded in this complaint, is to be thrashed out before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Therefore we hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction or competency to adjudicate on the merits of the dispute. Accordingly this complaint is rejected.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of November, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President Sd/-
Smt. Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
