Kerala

StateCommission

RP/16/6

M/S NIPPON TOYOTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIJU ABRAHAM - Opp.Party(s)

R JAYAKRISHNAN

28 Apr 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

REVISION PETITION 06/2016

JUDGMENT DATED:28/04/2016

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.501/2014 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram, order dated : 15.12.2015)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SMT. A. RADHA                             : MEMBER

 

 SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    : MEMBER

 

REVISION PETITIONER

 

          M/s. Union Bank of India,

          Chalai Branch,

          R/by its Chief Manager,

          Harish Saliyavar

 

          (By Adv: Sri. R. Jagadish Kumar)

 

                                                                   Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          S. Girija,

          Arayikkal Veedu,

          Kallingal, Kulahoor. P.O.,

          Attipra,  Thiruvananthapruam.

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Revision petitioners are the opposite parties in CC No.501/2014 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The revision petitioners filed IA No.323/2015 before the consumer forum challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the transaction in question was one of speculative nature and hence no consumer dispute was involved.  The consumer forum rejected the argument and held that the complaint was maintainable. In order to decide the disputed question the allegations in the complaint are relevant.  The complainant alleged that she had purchased 174 shares of the Union Bank of India in the year 2009.  But she intended to sell those shares and wanted the shares to be removed to capstock account.  But though the complainant submitted application for the purpose on two occasions the opposite parties failed to transfer the shares to capstock account. In the meanwhile the value of the shares crashed in the market and therefore she suffered loss.  On the above facts alleged in the complaint deficiency in service is alleged in the background of failure to transfer shares to capstock account. What is alleged is not loss during sale of shares.   So the consumer forum is right in holding that speculative nature is absent in the transaction.

          2.      It is submitted before us that the application submitted by the complainant was defective and that caused the delay in transferring the shares to the capstock account.   That is a matter to be decided at the time of final disposal of complaint after recording evidence.  Objection is also taken regarding certain observations in the impugned order.   But it is settled law that the final disposal of the complainant would be untrammelled by any observation in the order in an interring application where the same issue might be considered without evidence on record. The revision petitioners raised question of maintainability in the background of disputed facts.   So the question raised is only a mixed question of law and fact which requires evidence to be recorded before final disposal of the issue.  Speculative nature or otherwise is a question that cannot be answered without recording evidence.  In that way also the consumer forum was justified in dismissing the application.  Therefore there is no merit in the revision petition and is accordingly dismissed.  The consumer forum shall record evidence and dispose of the consumer complaint as expeditiously as possible.  Send back the records immediately.

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

1. RADHA               : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

REVISION PETITION 06/2016

JUDGMENT DATED:28/04/2016

 

 

nb