IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                    C.C.No. 283/2023

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                  ORDER DATED:   03-08-2023

BETWEEN

Yashel K.K.,

S/o K.K.Chandran,

Pravasam,

Nirmalagiri Tapal,

Kannur 670701.                                                  :         Complainant

AND

Manager,

South Indian Bank,

Mattannoor Branch,

Mattannoor P.O., Kannur 670702                     :      Opposite Party

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

Complainant present in person for online admission hearing. Heard the complainant in detail. From the pleadings in the complaint itself it is apparent that, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

Furthermore, the opposite party is also not within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

The complainant brought to attention Section 38 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which states that where an application is made for hearing or for examination of parties in person or through video conferencing, the District Commission may, on sufficient cause being shown and after recording its reason in writing, allow the same.

The complainant presented the argument that the concerned District Commission where the cause of action has arisen does not have the infrastructure to conduct online hearings which is a vital requirement for resolving his case since he being an NRI. Hence, the complainant, referring to Section 38 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, asserted that he has  approached another Commission that offers online hearing facilities in such circumstances. As a consequence of the concerned District Commission's lack of infrastructure for online hearings, the complainant who is residing outside the country, felt compelled to seek redress from this Commission, where online hearing facilities are available and functional. He firmly insisted that his complaint be entertained by this Commission based on the provisions outlined in Section 38 (6) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, as it grants them the right to pursue their case online.

But as per section 34 (2) of the consumer Protection Act of 2019, the jurisdiction of District Commission has been very specifically stated which reads as follows Jurisdiction of District Commission-2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,

1. the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
2. any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or
3. the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or
4. the complainant resides or personally works for gain.

In view of the above, due to lack of jurisdiction, the complaint is not admissible before this Commission and hence the complaint is returned to the complainant to file it before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievances if any.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 3^rd  day of  August 2023.

Dated this the 3^rd day of August 2023.

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

 Forwarded/by Order                                                                                                          

                          Senior superintendent