<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is an application filed by the opp.party challenging the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum.<br /> The averments in the petition are that the complaint is filed by the complainant/Respondent alleging that the opp.party has not complied with a direction of the Hon’ble High court in a case, for which Forum has no authority to adjudicate the said matter that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore this complaint may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> The Respondent/complainant filed objection contending that as per the direction of the Hon’ble .High court in CRP No.106/1986 the respondent/complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on 30.5.1986 and Rs.50,000/- on 2.6.1986 to the counsel for the opp.party, that there was a specific direction by the Hon’ble High Court to appropriate the said sum towards the plaint amount in that case but the opp.party has not complied with the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and that this Forum has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the opp.party to pay back the said sum.<br /> <br /> The point for consideration is whether or not this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.<br /> Points: Heard, both sides. As a matter of fact the respondent/complainant has not produced the order of the Hon’ble High Court before this Forum. According to the respondent/complainant as per the direction of the Hon.ble High court he paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to the counsel of the opp.party and that the High Court directed the opp.party to appropriate that amount towards the plaint amount in OS.318/82 of the Sub Court, Kollam which the opp.party herein has not complied with. As argued by the petitioner/opp.party if the order of the High Court is not complied with the complainant ought to have approached the Hon’ble High Court which passed the order. The averments show that the order was passed in the year 1986 and there is no explanation what so ever for the inordinate delay of about 21 years. If such an order is passed by the Hon’ble High Court and if that order is violated as pointed out earlier the complainant ought to have moved the Hon;ble High Court for appropriate action. It is also worth pointing out that the complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 [1] of the Consumer Protection Act. The lacks of bonafides can be gathered from the fact that this complainant was filed about 21 years after the order alleged to have been passed by the Hon’ble High Court and without producing the order. In these circumstances we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Accordingly this I.A is allowed. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> In the result this IA is allowed and the complaint is dismissed with costs Rs.500/- to the opposite party.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br />