R CHANDRAN Vs. K V KRISHNA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred from the order dated 10 th November, 1998 passed by CDRF, Trichur in OP 174/98. The complaint in the said OP 174/98 was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondents 1 to 4 as opposite parties claiming refund of the Kuri amount and compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in conducting the Kuri and disbursement of the Kuri amount due to the complainant. The opposite parties disputed the case in the complaint and contended that the complainant is not a consumer coming under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , and that the said complaint is not maintainable in view of the pendency of criminal case and criminal investigation involving the Kuri transaction. The lower Forum accepted the case of the opposite parties to a certain extent and there by dismissed the complaint in OP 174/98 on the ground that the criminal case and criminal investigation are pending in respect of the allegations made in the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the lower Forum, the present appeal is preferred by the complainant in OP 174/98.

(2.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant. There was no representation for the respondents 1, 3 and 4 and additional respondents 5 and 6; even though sufficient opportunities were given to the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued this appeal on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He also relied on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kalyan Sundaram Cement Industries and Others, 1996 SCC(Cri) 466and also the decision rendered by this State Commission in M/s. Lakshmi Miiraleedharan v. Vasanth Apartments and Construction (P) Ltd. and 2 Ors., 2001 2 CPJ 367 and submitted that the pendency of the criminal case or criminal investigation are not a bar in proceedings with the complaint which was filed on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower Forum and allow the complaint in OP 174/98. Even though, there was no representation from the side of the respondents the learned Counsel for the first respondents had submitted the decision rendered by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Santosh Sharma and Others v. State Bank of India in Original Petition No. 28/1990 decided on 9.11.1990, in support of the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Lower Forum.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: