LAKSHMI GENERAL FINANCE LTD Vs. K R PALANIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above writ peti"tion for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, the third respondent herein, from trying C.O.P. No.473 of 2004 on its file.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has availed finance facility from the petitioner for purchase of lorry on hire pur"chase basis. THE hire purchase agreement dated 16.10.1999 has been entered into be"tween them. As on 7.12.2004, a sum of Rs.19,531/- is due from the first respondent. THErefore, the petitioner declined to grant No Objection Certificate to the first respondent herein for renewal of permit. Since the peti"tioner herein has declined to issue such Certifi"cate, the first respondent has filed a Complaint in C.O.P. No.473 of 2004 on the file of the 3rd respondent-District Forum for directing the petitioner and the second respondent herein to have the lorry permit renewed and for other relief. Further, the first respondent has filed M.P. No.403 of 2004 praying to direct the respon"dents in the said C.O.P. to renew the permit without insisting on the No Objection Certificate from the petitioners. THE District Forum has allowed the said Application and hence, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No.32 of 2005 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. THE petitioner has been advised to file the present writ petition, since the District Forum lacks jurisdiction to try the Complaint filed by the first respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent has drawn my attention to the judgment Lucknow Development Authority v. M Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787: (1994) 1 SCC 243: (1994) 1 MLJ 55, wherein it has been held follows: "But before doing so and examining the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum or State or National Commission to entertain a Complaint under the Act, it appears appropriate to ascertain the purpose of the Act, the objective it seeks to achieve and the nature of social purpose it seeks to promotes as it shall facilitate in comprehending the issue involved and assist in construing vari"ous provisions of the Act effectively. To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the leg"islative intention, it was enacted, to provide for the protection of the interest of consum"ers. Use of the word `protection' furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without depart"ing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt ne"cessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under or"dinary law for various reasons has become illusory." THE S.L.P. filed by the Lucknow Development Authority therein has been dismissed fielding that they are responsible for causing harassment and mental agony to the respon"dent therein.