State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.Ranganathan, No.7, Ist Floor, 10Th ... vs 1.Sri.Justice K.Ramanna, (2) ... on 19 June, 2013
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.SAMBANDAM MEMBER F.A.NO.548/2012 (A.P.No.1310/2012 transferred from SCDRC, Karnataka against the order in CC.No.1020/2012 on the file of 4th Addl.District Forum, Bangalore) DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JUNE 2013 P.Ranganathan, No.7, 1st Floor, 10th A Main Road, Pragathi Nagar, Hongasandra, Devarachikkanahalli Road, Appellant / Complainant Bangalore 560068.
-vs-
1. Sri.Justice K.Ramanna - President
2. Sri.A.M.Bennur - Member
3. Smt.Rama Ananth - Member Of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basava Bhavan, Respondents /Opposite parties Sri Basaveshwara Circle, High Grounds, Bangalore 560001.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant as against the order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, finding some discrepancy in the order passed, claiming compensation of Rs.16,40,326/- for Travelling expenses, Food, Lodging expenses, along with interest, and also for mental agony. Since this appeal is filed against the Karnataka State Commission, on request of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, the above appeal was transferred to this commission, by the order of Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 28.8.2012.
Appellant requested to consider his written Argument as Oral arguments. No representation for Respondent. Written Arguments of Respondent received by post. This appeal is coming of before us for hearing finally on 12.4.2013, upon perusing the Written Arguments of both, and the record received by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, as well as filed by the appellant, this Commission made the following orders.
THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant as the complainant filed a complaint against the City Bank N.A., M.G.Road, Bangalore and City Bank N.A., Anna Salai, Chennai as opposite parties for certain deficiencies regarding the personal account and credit card services in CC.No.2693/2009 before the II Addl.District Forum, Seshadripuram in Bangalore and after an enquiry the District Forum granted relief to the complainant by directing the opposite party bank to take steps to remove his name from CIBIL on regularization of the personal account by the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order the complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No.1617/2011 which was dismissed by the State Commission inliminie at the stage of admission by well reasoned order dated 20.07.2011.
2. When the complainant obtained certified copy of the state commission order in A.P.No.1617/2011 dated 20.07.2011, the order copy was found with some defects by omissioning certain 4 or 5 lines in para-2 of the order which made the complainant to get it rectification subsequently after the direction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission while filing Revision petition against the order of the State Commission and the Revision Petition was numbered as 2763/2011 and in the Interim order dated 12.09.2012. In the Revision petition, the National Commission has given an observation with liberty to take suitable action against the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka for providing incomplete certified copy of the order. On the basis of the same the complainant presumed himself as a Consumer in this regard filed a Consumer complaint against the President and two members of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by name arraying them as opposite parties before the 4th Addl. District Forum, Bangalore praying for Rs.16,40,236/- as compensation with cost and the 4th Addl.District Forum, Bangalore by taking cognizance of the complaint in CC.No.1020/2012 and after an enquiry dismissed the complaint by observing that the complaint is not maintainable.
3. Against the said order the present appellant preferred an appeal before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which was numbered as Appeal No.1310/2012 in which the State Commission President Justice K.Ramanna, and two members Sri.A.M.Bennur, and Smt.Rama Ananth are shown as respondents and the State Commission after entertaining the appeal addressed the Honble National Commission to transfer the case to some other State Commission since the respondents are President and members of the Commission cannot sit as judges to decide the case against their own interest and thereby and on the basis of the request made by the Register cum Administrative Officer, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Appeal No.1310/2012 filed by the appellant was ordered to be transferred to the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and thereby this appeal came to be taken cognizance by this Commission as A.P.No.548/2012.
4. When the appeal is taken up for hearing before this Commission both sides have submitted their written arguments.
5. On perusal of the both sides written arguments and materials relating to the case records and upon perusal of those materials and consideration order being passed on merits.
6. The appellant as the complainant filed the complaint against the City Bank in CC.No.2693/2009 on the file of II Addl.District Forum, Bangalore and against the order passed not satisfied with the same the appellant/Complainant preferred an appeal before the Karnataka State Commission in A.P.No.1617/2011 which was dismissed after an enquiry by observing that the appellant failed to make out substantial ground in the admission stage itself. Against which when preferred Revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission he came to know that the certified copy furnished by the State Commission was found defective by omissioning certain lines and the portion of the 2nd para was omitted to be printed for which the National Commission while entertaining the Revision petition against the order of the State Commission directed the State Commission Registry to get the order rectified and accordingly after the rectification the Revision was entertained and in the course of enquiry the National Commission in its order dated 28.3.2012 in the R.P.No.2763/2011 has observed as follows:-
Petitioner submits that he has travelled from Bangalore at an expenses and he is not at fault. He is at liberty to seek his remedy against the State Commission as provided under law, for providing incomplete certified copy of the impugned order.
On the basis of this observation the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the President and two members of the Karnataka State Commission claiming Rs.16,40,236/- towards compensation, traveling expenses, food expenses, lodging expenses and interest, mental agony from the opposite party (President and Members of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) in CC. No.1020/2012 before the IV Addl. District Forum, Bangalore it was dismissed after an enquiry by the District Forum by observing that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint does not fall under the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 u/s 2 (1 ) (d) as consumer and there is no relationship of Consumer and service provider between them. Further the provision of defective order copy was happened by way of bonofide mistake, unintentional and the order was pronounced by the Member A.M. Bennur who is not now functioning and also the Registrar cum Administrative Officer explained the circumstances under which the defective certified copy was came to be issued.
Though the omitted portion was found typed in the computer system at the end of the first page they were not printed accidentally and no way it caused any loss to the complainant and thereby the complaint was dismissed. Against which now the present appeal is taken up for consideration by this Commission by way of transferred appeal.
7. On perusal of both sides written submissions and materials placed before us and even before the National Commission after getting the Interim direction in the final hearing also on 12.09.2012 before the National Commission the petitioner failed to appear and the Revision filed against the appeal No.1617/2011 which is the crux of the matter for this appeal in R.P.2763/2011 was dismissed as no merit and as far as the claim of the appellant / complainant regarding compensation for the omission for the provision of incomplete certified copy of order, the District Forum considered all the aspects in this regard and on perusal of the award in CC 1020/2012 dated 31.5.2012 the District Forum has discussed all the aspects in Para 4 to 6 and accepting the explanation for the provision of defective certified order copy in the appeal is concerned and the circumstances under which it was furnished being judicial order passed by the State Commission no question of causing any damages or loss to the complainant caused except certain expenses to move before the National Commission instead of approaching the State Commission directly to set right the defect in the certified copy for correction which caused inconvenience to the complainant / appellant had rushed to National Commission, Delhi. As far as the National Commission order is concerned dated 28.3.2012 regarding the directions to seek remedy against the State Commission it is observed He is at liberty to seek his remedy against the State Commission as provided under law for providing incomplete certified copy of the impugned order. It did not say that the complainant should approach the consumer Fora for this purpose and only stated as provided under law which means the appropriate forum for claiming damages, loss under the Civil law. The complainant / Appellant submitted in his written arguments before this Commission stating that he had paid Rs.4000/- towards court fee for the complaint filed and thereby he is the consumer and the respondents are service providers and under Section 2 (1) (r) as service providers they adopted unfair trade practice for which he is entitled to come forward with the Consumer complaint as a consumer. While considering this submission under Section 2 (1) (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is stated as follows:
unfair trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or deceptive practice including any of the practices are mentioned under the provision. In our case while getting certified copy of the order copy from the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in A.P.No.1617/2011 the certified copy was originally supplied was found with certain omission of lines in para-2 of page-1 and which was subsequently rectified after pointing out the defects through the National Commission while considering R.P.No.2763/2011 and in the IV Addl.District Forum, Bangalore judgment in CC.No.1020/2012 in Para-4 it was discussed about the letter of the Registrar cum Administrative officer, Karnataka State Commission, explaining the circumstances regarding the omission by stating that a portion of 2nd para though typed in the computer system at the end of 1st page was not printed accidentally and the same is only an accidental error and without any intention and in those circumstances it cannot be considered as unfair trade practice and the mistake was only a bonafide mistake which is unintentional and the order was in the nature of Judicial order by the State Commission. The bonafide acts of the President and members of the State Commission while discharging their duties in such capacities cannot be questioned by anybody unless some motive or vengeance are attributed as contemplated under Section 28 of the Consumer Protection Act in which it is stated as follows. Protection of action taken in good faith :- No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the members of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission or any officer or person acting under the direction of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission for executing any order made by it or in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by such member, officer or person under this Act or under any rule or order made thereunder. In this case no such things were proved by the complainant against the respondents in any way. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum in its order in CC.No.1020/2012 in para-6 as the interpretation of the order of the Honble National Commission by the complainant is totally wrong, illegal, and not sustainable in law and thereby we are of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity or error in the findings of the District Forum in CC.No.1020/2012 by coming to the conclusion that the complaint was not maintainable and dismissed the same with which we are in full agreement, and this appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. From the written submissions and other materials placed by the complainant / appellant before this commission we find certain unwarranted allegations against the Respondents for which even though the provision under Section 26, of the Consumer Protection Act could be invoked we are not inclined to do so. Accordingly In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs in the appeal.
Registry is directed to supply free copies of the order to both parties and to the Registry of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and 4th Addl.District Forum, Bangalore.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIALMEMBER