KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.75/2024

ORDER DATED: 09.12.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.1045/2023 in C.C.No.342/2022 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/2^ndOPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Jithin Paul Varghese, Adv.R. Gireesh Babu and Adv. P. Fazil)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The 2^nd opposite party in C.C.No.342/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (for short the ‘District Commission’) is the revision petitioner.

2.       The complainant before the District Commission is the 1^st respondent herein.

3.       The complainant purchased a TATA Nexon car from the 2^nd opposite party and the said car was found to have some problems while driving.  In the said circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.

4.       The 1^st opposite party was the manufacturer of the car.  The 2^nd opposite party filed I.A.No.1045/2023 before the District Commission requesting the District Commission to hear the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.  It was contended by the 2^nd opposite party/revision petitioner that the transaction involved in this case was a commercial transaction and hence the complainant would not come within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as provided under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’) and the service rendered by the opposite parties would not be a service as defined under Section 2(42) of the Act.

5.       The District Commission as per the order impugned, dismissed the said I.A.No.1045/2023 holding that the complainant would fall within the ambit of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act.  Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

6.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

7.       The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has argued that the District Commission had passed the order impugned as if it were a final order in the complaint and hence the order impugned cannot be sustained. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the District Commission had passed the order impugned after going deep into the probative value of the materials on record, which was not contemplated under law.

8.    It is true that at the preliminary stage, the commission is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the materials on record, which is possible only at the time of passing the final order.  It is stated in page 2 of the order impugned under ‘Legal Reasoning and Analysis’ as hereunder:-

“We have meticulously considered the detailed submission of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes”.

9.       The District Commission ought not to have weighed the evidence meticulously and thoroughly for the purpose of passing the interim order as had been done in this case.  In this case, the complainant had filed proof affidavit.  The cross-examination of the complainant, if required, is yet to be permitted. Therefore, it was not incumbent upon the District Commission to weigh the evidence meticulously and thoroughly at this stage, for the purpose of passing the interim order.

10.     It appears from the order impugned that the District Commission had meticulously and thoroughly considered the materials on record and passed the order, which was having the effect of a final order, and hence, prejudice had been caused to the parties, as their right to adduce evidence had been shut down by the order impugned.  In the said circumstances, the order impugned cannot be legal, proper and correct and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the District Commission is directed to dispose of C.C.No.342/2022 in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, untrammelled by any of the observations in the order impugned.

Needless to say that the District Commission shall decide all issues, including the issue which had been already decided as per the order impugned, while disposing of the complaint.

SL