IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MEHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.No.96/2018
[Against the Docket order passed in CC.No.41/2015 dated 17.07.2015 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Chennai (South)]
DATED THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH, 2020.
V.R. Krishnakumar
No.88A/59(N) Thulasingam Street,
Perambur, Chennai - 600011 :: Appellant/Complainant
Vs.
1.The Senior Manager
Indusind Bank
No.115 & 116,
G.N. Chetty Road, 4th Floor,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017 & 5 others :: Respondent /1st Opposite party
2.Chief General Manager,
Department of Banking Supervision,
Reserve Bank of India,
Fort Glacis, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. :: Respondent /2nd Opposite party
3.The principal Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services,
Room No.09, Jeevan Deep Building,
Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110001. :: Respondent /3rd Opposite party
4.The Secretary,
Indian Bank’s Association,
World Trade Centre, 6th Floor,
Centre 1 Building,
World Trade Centre Complex, Cuff Parade,
Mumbai – 400 005. :: Respondent /4th Opposite party
5.The Chairman of the State Consumer Commission Protection Council,
Office of the Ministry of Cooperation, Food and Consumer
Protection Department, Fort Saint George, Secretariat,
Chennai -600 009. :: Respondent /5th Opposite party
6.The principal Secretary to the Government
Commercial Tax Registration Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 6000 09. :: Respondent /6th Opposite party
For Petitioner/Appellant : Party in person
Counsel for Respondent / 1st Opposite party : M/s Sai Krishnan Associates
Counsel for Respondents 2-6/Opposite parties 2 to 6 : Called absent
This appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 03.03.2020 the appellant having been called absent and on hearing the arguments of Respondent and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT (Open Court)
1. This appeal is directed against the adjudication order dated 17.07.2015 made by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Chennai, South (in short the District Forum) in CC.No.41/2015.
2. The parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed before the Learned District Forum for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3.The Factual matrix culminating in this appeal
That the complainant had filed the complaint in CC.No.41/2015 wherein the opposite party had not filed the Written Version within the stipulated time and that the Learned District Forum had leniently extended time for filing Written Version beyond the period of 30 days by imposing cost of Rs.200/- and as the complainant had refused to receive the cost the opposite party had filed a memo stating the same and hence the Learned District Forum had directed the opposite party to remit the cost to the legal aid account of the District Forum. This order was passed on 17.07.2015 which is under challenge now. Along with the appeal the complainant had also filed CMP.Sr.1024/2018 which has been coming up for deciding the question of maintainability. This commission on 16.10.2019 directed the appellant to appear before this commission for hearing the question of maintainability or for rejection on 29.11.2019. Again this case was adjourned to today viz 3.03.2020 for deciding the maintainability of the petition. Today also the petitioner / Appellant is absent and there was no representation for the petitioner, though the matter was called and passed over till the calling work was over.
4. Therefore we are of the view that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
5. Further a perusal of the grounds of appeal and the impugned order would reveal that this appeal has been filed vexatiously. Originally the appellant had filed a single revision petition in RP.No.29/2015 challenging the correctness of the four Docket Orders dated 27.02.2015, 22.04.2015, 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015. Those orders are as follows:
27.02.2015
M/s. Sai Krishnan Associates filed vakalath for 1st opposite party. Opposite parties 2 to 6 are called absent, set exparte. Written Version on opposite party-1 by 22.04.2015.
22.04.2015
At request Written Version of opposite party-1 with cost of Rs.200/- by 17.06.2015. without fail.
17.06.2015
Written version of opposite party-1 filed. Cost said to have sent through money order was returned by the complainant. Hence the cost of Rs.200/- to be paid in the next hearing, without fail, proof affidavit of both sides by 17.07.2015.
17.07.2015
Memo filed, since the complainant refused to receive cost the said is ordered to be paid to Legal Aid Account of this forum, Proof affidavit of complainant filed and recorded. Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked. At request for proof affidavit of opposite party by 11.09.2015
6. In that revision petition the appellant had challenged all the four orders on the ground that those four orders were signed by the Learned President of the District Forum alone and the other members constituting the quorum did not sign those orders and hence those orders were vitiated. Further it was contended that extension of time for filing Written Version beyond 30 days (45 days) was illegal.
7. This commission by its order dated 14.11.2013 dismissed the Revision Petition in RP.No.29/2015 on the grounds that a single revision would not lie against 4 different orders passed on four different dates and that the revision against the orders dated 27.02.2015 and 22.04.2015 was barred by limitation and that the revision against the orders dated 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015 alone could be held to be in time. It was further held that 2 separate revisions have to be filed challenging the 2 orders dated 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015.
8. In pursuance of the said orders of this commission dated 14.11.2017 in RP.No.29/2015 the appellant had preferred 3 separate appeals against three Docket Orders dated 27.02.2015, 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015 in FA.No.98/2018, FA.No.97/2018 and FA.No.96/2018 respectively. Accordingly this appeal was filed challenging the order dated 17.07.2015. While deciding the connected appeal in FA.No.98/2018, this commission has held that the appeal filed in the year 2017 against the order dated 27.02.2015 is scrupulously barred by limitation. Hence the order dated 17.07.2015 is consequential to the order dated 27.02.2015 which has attained finality as the appeal preferred against the said order in FA.No.98/2018 was dismissed. Hence without disturbing the order dated 27.02.2015, the consequential order dated 17.07.2015 cannot be challenged on the ground that the Learned District Forum had no power to extend time beyond 45 days for filing the Written Version
9. Further perusal of records would show that the order under challenged in this appeal is dated 17.07.2015 and as such the appeal should have been preferred within 30 days from the date of order. But the appellant has filed this appeal only in the year 2017. No petition has been filed application praying to condone the delay was filed under the proviso to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence there is no question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Hence we are of the view that this appeal is scrupulously barred by limitation.
10. Even on merits this appeal cannot be maintained. Because the main grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order was signed by the Learned President of the District Forum alone whereas the said order should have been signed by the president and the member / members who conducted the proceedings as per Section 14 (2-A). We are of the view that the grievance of the appellant is misconceived because Section 14(2-A) reads as ”Every order made by the District Forum under Sub Section (1) shall be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceeding” hence it emerges that only an order passed under Section 14(1) alone needs to be signed by the President and the member or members who conducted the proceeding. Here the impugned order dated 17.07.2015 is not an order passed under section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Because section 14(1) deals with the order that can be passed after conducting the proceedings under section 13 of the said Act. Hence the impugned order dated 17.07.2015 cannot be, at any stretch of imagination, called or termed as an order passed under section 14(1) after conducting the proceedings under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence we do not see any illegality or impropriety in the Learned President of the District Forum alone signing the said order. Further we are shocked to peruse the averments made by the appellant in this appeal. At this juncture, we feel that it is also relevant to refer the improper behavior of the Appellant in the open court. He unreasonably went on sludging mud on the Commission without any basis. His behaviour in the open court would also undermine and diminish the decorum of this Commission. He would use insinuating, slanderous and degrading remarks against the judiciary including the Superior Courts. He is sending petition after petition against the staff members of this commission levelling bald allegations. He has stated in para No.4(2) as follows:-
“ My prayer before this Commission, the court TN SCDRC running like, “Tuglak darbar” not like court……”
“…TN SCDRC court staff no adequate administrate knowledge…take necessary criminal action…”
Hence we are of the view that heavy cost should be imposed upon the appellant for his act of vexatious litigation. We are of the view that quantifying the cost at Rs.10,000/- would be just and reasonable on the facts and circumstance of this case.
In the result the appeal is dismissed with the cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the Appellant to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission to be collected and paid for the child home “Uthavum Karangal” an orphanage at Chennai. The cost shall be paid within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the Registry shall initiate proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI K.BASKARAN S.TAMILVANAN
MEMBER JUDL. MEMBER PRESIDENT
