18th day of December 2024
CC 839/24
Complainant : Rajeev V.R., S/o Raghavan V.K., Varappully House,
Vallachira Village, P.O. Thaikkattussery,
Cherussery, Pin – 680 306.
(By Adv. M.R. Ramesh, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Rajeev Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology,
Dept. of Biotechnology, Thaikkad P.O., Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.
Case Receiving Officer George Varghese.
2) Rajeev Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology,
Department of Biotechnology, Thaikkad P.O.,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.
DNA Examiner Sureshkumar U.
3) Rajeev Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology,
Department of Biotechnology, Thaikkad P.O.,
Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.
DNA Chief Scientific Officer Dr. E.V. Soniya.
4) Rajeev Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology,
Department of Biotechnology, Rep. by Secretary,
Thaikkad P.O., Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram –
695 014.
5) Rajeev Gandhi Centre For Biotechnology,
Department of Biotechnology, Rep. by Director –
Prof. Radhakrishna Pillai, Thaikkad P.O., Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.
O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
The complaint is filed under Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant who claims to be a working class labourer, states to have filed a case (OP 762/2015) before the Family Court, Thrissur praying for voiding his marriage. The complainant claims to have, as per the order of the Family Court, Thrissur, got a DNA test conducted at the 1st opposite party establishment at his cost, and the DNA test report obtained. The 2nd to the 5th opposite parties are statedly the employees / officials of the 1st opposite party establishment. The complainant alleges that the said DNA test report produced before the Family Court, Thrissur is false and the tests, concerned, are done by employees who were not competent and qualified to do the same. The complainant also alleges that the opposite parties underwent coercion and undue influence from the part of some others, in their having given such a false DNA test report. The complainant, thereby, alleges deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
Heard the issue of admissibility. The gist of the case at hand is that the impugned DNA test report produced before the Family Court, Thrissur is allegedly defective owing to the opposite parties’ having undergone coercive and undue influence of others. Admittedly, the impugned DNA test report is a piece of evidence that is under the consideration of the learned Family Court, Thrissur. Had the same been defective as alleged, the complainant ought to have brought the matter to the notice of that learned court or its appellate court and got his grievances addressed. This Commission’s consideration of the case at this stage, would give rise to parallel proceedings and may also result in conflicting decisions, as well, which in turn would undermine the ideals of judicial propriety and fairness. Moreover, the disputed validity of the impugned DNA test report and its alleged attribution to coercive and undue influence of “some others”, are matters that involve highly disputed question of facts and tortious acts or criminality, which this Commission cannot decide. This fact is underscored by the Hon’ble Apex Court by its judgment dtd. 27/03/23 in Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. And Another Vs R Chandramohan [2023 SCC OnLine SC 341]
All considered, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and hence stands rejected.
The complainant is at liberty to agitate the appropriate Forum for remedy, if any, required for his grievances.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 18th day of December 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Nil
Id/- Ram Mohan R Member
