KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 16/2022

ORDER DATED: 26.07.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 92/2021 of CDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONERS:

1. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, Athikari Acropolis, 1^st Floor, S 113, S114, Near SCDCC Bank, Opp: Surathkal Post Office, Mangalore.

2. The Managing Director, Shriram Transport Finance Co., Door No. 101-105, 1^st Floor, B Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector II, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai, represented by Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, Kasaragod.

3. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company, 2^nd Floor, Aramana Arcade, Bank Road, Kasaragod.

                    (By Adv. Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

T. Pramod, S/o Manukuttan, Door No. 1/20, Umesh Sadan House, Kana Surathkal Post, Mangalore-575 014.

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The revision petitioners are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 92/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (will be referred as District Commission as short).  The petitioner had filed I.A. No. 282/2021 to consider the preliminary issue as to whether the complaint is maintainable.  On 21.03.2022 the District Commission dismissed the petition on the reason that the plea that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose cannot be decided at this stage as evidence is required in reaching such a conclusion.  So the said issue was not considered as a preliminary issue.  The next plea is that the District Commission has no territorial jurisdiction which was also found against the opposite parties on the ground that the third opposite party was conducting business within the jurisdictional limits of the District Commission.  The petitioner challenged the finding of the District Commission that the complaint is not maintainable as the transaction is commercial in nature.

2.  On admitting the revision notice was issued to the respondent.  Though notice was served there was no representation on the side of the respondent.  The records received from the District Commission were perused.

3.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner.  According to the petitioner the complainant had purchased several cars and the said purchases cannot be construed as purchase for his personal use.  According to the petitioner it is apparent that the purchase of motor cars was made for commercial purpose and hence the complaint is not maintainable.   In this connection it is pertinent to note that if purchases were made for livelihood, it cannot be found that the complaint is not maintainable.  For arriving at such a conclusion evidence is required which is yet to be adduced.   At this point of time it cannot be answered as a preliminary issue.

4.  The District Commission had passed a correct order and we find no reason to interfere with the order in dispute.  As the petitioner could not point out any error committed by the District Commission the revision fails. 

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb                                                                     BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER