BEAULAH GRACE ALBERT Vs. ROSE JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed with a prayer to transfer CC No.81/2018 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. The petitioners are the 1st and 2nd opposite parties in CC No.81/2018, which is a complaint submitted under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 1986") before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. The first and second respondents herein are the complainants in the said case. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent was working as the President of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode at the time of filing the complaint. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. The case of the petitioners is that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur is not having jurisdiction and no cause of action as alleged in the complaint arose there, at any point in time. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent misused her official position and various allegations are stated in the writ petition. Hence, the prayer in this writ petition is to transfer the complaint CC No.81/2018 pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. The first respondent is no longer the President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode and therefore, there is no prejudice caused, if the complaint is transferred to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not in a position to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Hereinafter mentioned as State Commission) because there is no such power to the State Commission to transfer a case at the instance of the opposite party. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents.

(3.) When this matter came up for consideration, this Court doubted the maintainability of the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Sec.17A of the Act 1986 there is no power to the State Commission to transfer a complaint from one District Forum to another District Forum, at the instance of a petition from the opposite party in a complaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st and 2nd respondents submitted that, even before Sec.17A of the Act is inserted in the Act 1986, this Court in Malabar Palace v. The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [2002 (2) KLT 461] held that the State Forum has the power to transfer a case from one District Forum to another. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.