RIA THOMAS Vs. TATA REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the complainant No.9 in C.C. No.9/21 on the files of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner along with respondents 3 to 13, against the respondents 1 and 2 herein. Various reliefs were sought in the said complaint against the respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner which necessitated the filing of this writ petition is that, as per Ext.P7 order, the complaint submitted by the petitioner and other complainants, was dismissed for non prosecution, without going into the merits of the contentions. The challenge raised by the petitioner is that, as per the statutory stipulations contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly Sec. 38(2)(c) read with Sec. 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, the State Commission could not have dismissed a complaint for non prosecution and it was obligatory on the part of the Commission to decide the matter on merits, even if the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing. It was in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner, impleading other complainants as respondents 3 to 13.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through Counsel and a detailed counter affidavit has been filed. In the counter affidavit, the maintainability of the writ petition was challenged, on the reason that, even though the petitioner alone filed the writ petition, it was in fact on behalf of the respondents 3 to 13 as well, and therefore, the court fee at the rate of Rs.100.00 per person under the provisions of the Kerala Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, ought to have been paid. Apart from the above, it was also contended that, by virtue of Rule 12 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020, the State Commission is empowered to dismiss a compliant for default due to non appearance of the complainant. It is also averred that, in Sec. 49, by which the Sec. 38 was made applicable to the State Commission, it is specifically mentioned that the provisions in Sec. 38 would be applicable to the State Commission with "necessary modifications". Therefore, it was contended that, the stipulations in Rule 12 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020 would amount to " necessary modification" as envisaged in Sec. 49 and therefore, the order impugned in this case is not liable to be interfered with.