JOSEPH SUGANTHA Vs. KANMANI DIRAVIAM & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted his arguments on the strength of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stating that there are more numbers of persons than one and without obtaining permission, a complaint cannot be entertained. He has also submitted that only booking was done and that there was no consideration for the same. The objection under Section 12(1)(c) relating to jurisdiction ought to have been specifically raised in the Revision Petition as one of the grounds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner requires that he may be permitted to raise it as an additional ground before the Lower Forum and that his party may also be permitted to adduce evidence on that aspect and other aspects as well before the lower Forum.

(2.) THE Counsel for the respondent submitted that this Commission in a case where a complaint was filed in respect of 12 consignments and clubbed in a complaint has held that the Consumer Protection Act has provided for a simple procedure and has done away with such legal technicalities and, therefore, a single complaint can be filed relating to 12 consignments and held that there was no misjoinder of cause of action. The learned Counsel for the respondent also relied upon certain other judgments with regard to the definition of "Consumer". But we do not propose to consider the question whether the complainant would fall within the definition of consumer since we have taken the view to remit the matter back to the lower Forum giving an opportunity to the petitioner to raise the contention regarding those things' maintainability for want of permission under Section 12(1)(c). Therefore, in that view of the matter, the question that the complainants can be brought under the definition of consumer would have to be only decided by the lower Forum. Consequently, we refrain from making any observations on the merits of the complaint or on the question whether the complainants are consumers. But, however, the present Revision Petition having been confined only to the objection taken by the opposite party/petitioner that the consideration of the objections raised in the version would involve matter of evidence which only a Civil Court is competent to go into, we are unable to accept the contention since, we feel, that considering the scope of the complaint and the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, we are of the veiw that no complicated questions of facts or law would arise that would necessitate examination of number of witnesses or making of several documents. Nor consideration of any intricate questions of facts and law is involved and, therefore, the view taken by the Lower Forum in that regard cannot be faulted with. Consequently, the Revision Petition is disposed of holding that the order of the Lower Forum insofar as it held that the complaint is maintainable and that it is not a matter to be decided before the Civil Forum is upheld. However, it is made clear that the Revision Petitioner is permitted to file additional grounds of appeal to raise their objections as indicated under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence or produce such documents as may be necessary and limited to the scope of the complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a request that the petitioner be permitted to adduce oral evidence in the main complaint. If it becomes necessary, they are entitled to approach the Lower Forum seeking such a leave. The Revision Petition is thus disposed of. No costs.