A-1250/2023
13-10-2023
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellant/Complainant in complaint No.11/2020 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Yadgiri which dismissed the complaint as not maintainable and submits that the complainants had filed complaints through their SPA holder along with application without quoting any provision of law seeking permission to file the common complaint before the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards the crop insurance.
2. At the time of admission, the District Commission keeping open the maintainability of complaint had issued notice to the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, the 1st Opposite Party filed objection of the said application. After hearing the said application, the District Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable with a liberty to the complainants to file their individual complaint within a period of six months from the date of the order on the same cause of action. In fact, the District Commission passed an order regarding maintainability at the belated stage. If the complaint is not maintainable; the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint at the time of admission stage itself, however, the District Commission failed to consider the same before the issuance of notice to Opposite Parties. The District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the complainants are poor and they are farmers. The District Commission ought to have seen whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties or not, but the District Commission has not verified the same and dismissed the complaint without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and documents produced by the complainants. Therefore the procedure adopted by the District Commission is exfacie, illegal and not sustainable in law. Hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and to remand back the matter for fresh trial in the interest of justice and equity.
3. Heard on admission.
4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order, we noticed that, the District Commission has noted that the complainants have not filed proper application as required under section 34(c) of Consumer Protection Act seeking permission to file single complaint on behalf of numerous consumers for benefit of all consumers. In absence of such permission before filing the complaint, the present form of complaint filed by the GPA is not maintainable. We noticed that the complainants have filed application for seeking permission to file common complaint through SPA holder, when such being the case, the District Consumer Commission ought to consider the application filed by the complainants. We noticed the District Consumer Commission has not considered the documents and evidence produced by complainants. We are of the opinion that the District Commission had utterly failed to apply its judicious mind while adjudicating the matter with respect to the allegations made by the complainants. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties/Insurance Company for not settling the claim towards crop insurance. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration; accordingly, the order passed by the District Commission is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to try on merits upon the evidence produced by both parties and dispose expeditiously as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 09-01-2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yadgiri in CC.No.11/2020 is set-aside.
The District Consumer Commission is directed to restore the matter in its original number and adjudicate the matter upon the appreciation of evidence and documents produced by both parties and dispose the matter expeditiously on merits
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
Member Judicial Member
Jrk/-
