KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 35/2023

ORDER DATED: 22.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 70/2019 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

Madhu, S/o Bhaskaran, Nandanam House, Pulimukku, Mallaserry Konni, Pathanamthitta.

(By Adv. Narayan R.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Riju John, Velanparambil House, Pulimukku, Konni represented by his Power of Attorney V.S. Johnny, residing at Flat No. 250-C, Hari Sri Bhavan, Payyanamon P.O., PIN-689 692, Konni, Pathanamthitta.

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

This revision is directed against the order dated 09.03.2023 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short) in I.A. No. 212/2022 in C.C. No. 70/2019.  The revision petitioner is the opposite party before the District Commission.

2.  The complaint was filed alleging defects in the construction of a residential building.  The construction was made on the basis of an agreement dated 24.04.2018.  According to the revision petitioner, more than 80% of the work has been completed.  There was delay on the part of the respondent/complainant who is working abroad to make timely payments.  It is alleged that, he was prevented from entering the work site by the respondent.  He has therefore filed O.S. No. 21/2019 before the Munsiff’s Court, Pathanamthitta seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent from entering into an agreement with any other person and also demolishing any portion of the construction made by the revision petitioner.  Another suit OS No. 462/2019 is pending between the parties where the revision petitioner has sought for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 9,07,220/- from the respondent.  The said suits are pending.  According to the revision petitioner C.C. No. 70/2019 was filed as a counterblast.  Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 212/2022 before the District Commission, praying for an order keeping in abeyance all further proceedings in C.C. No. 70/2019.  The said petition has been dismissed by the District Commission.  This revision petition is filed against the said order.

3.  According to the counsel for the revision petitioner since civil suits are pending consideration before the Munsiff’s Court, it is necessary to keep the proceedings before the District Commission in abeyance until the civil suits are finally decided.  Otherwise, it is contended that there will be inconsistent findings leading to multiplicity of the proceedings.  The counsel therefore seeks interference with the order under revision. 

4.  This revision petition has come up before us for admission.  We have gone through the order of the District Commission.  Though it is true that the original suits are pending between the parties before the Munsiff’s Court, the pendency of the said proceedings does not bar continuance of the proceedings before the District Commission.  Since C.C. No. 70/2019 is a consumer dispute, the nature of adjudication in the complaint would be different from the enquiry in the civil proceedings that are pending between the parties.  The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is enacted to provide speedy and efficacious remedy to the hapless consumers to ventilate their grievances.  The said proceedings are required to be completed expeditiously.  Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable only as between suits and has no application to consumer complaints.  Taking note of the above legal position, the District Commission has declined to keep in abeyance the proceedings in C.C. No. 70/2019.  It is for the said reason that the petition filed by the revision petitioner has been dismissed.  The view taken by the District Commission is correct.  Therefore the order of the District Commission is affirmed.  For the above reasons, this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs. 

AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb