Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K. Ramanna, President and Mrs. G.T. Vijayalakshmi, Member
SOVEREIGN DEVELOPERS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
DEVRAJ VISHWANATHAN AND OTHERS - Respondents
T.A. Nos. 2 to 4 of 2014
Decided on : 29-04-2014
Mr. Mohan Reddy, Advocate, for the Appellant
The need for speedy justice and minimum expenses as per the provisions of the CP Act was emphasized by the court.
Headnote:
Transfer Applications - Consumer Protection Act - CP Act, Rules - Summary: The court considered the transfer applications seeking to transfer 139 cases pending before different District Forums to one forum to avoid conflicting judgments and delay in disposal. The court found that the transfer applications were not in accordance with the law and lacked valid reasons. The court emphasized the need for speedy justice and minimum expenses as per the provisions of the CP Act. The court dismissed the transfer applications and directed the District Forums to dispose of the cases on a priority basis.
Fact of the Case:
The Applicant sought to transfer 139 cases pending before different District Forums to one forum, citing similar nature of cases, potential conflicting judgments, and delay due to vacant judicial officer positions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transfer applications lacked valid reasons and were not in accordance with the law. It emphasized the need for speedy justice and minimum expenses as per the provisions of the CP Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer applications seeking to transfer 139 cases pending before different District Forums to one forum were maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for speedy justice and minimum expenses as per the provisions of the CP Act. It found that the transfer applications lacked valid reasons and were not in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the three Transfer Applications and directed the District Forums to dispose of the cases on a priority basis without causing further delay.
ORDER
Mr. Justice K. Ramanna, President - Since the Appellant/OP are one and the same in these Transfer Applications through the respondents are different. Since the common question of law and facts are involved, we have taken up these matters together heard and being disposed of by this common order in order to avoid the repetition of facts.
2. These three Transfer Applications filed by the Applicant/opposite party pending on the file of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, Bangalore with a prayer to withdraw and transfer the C.C. Nos. 1854/2013 to C.C. No. 300/2014 on the file of 2nd Addl. D.F. to 1st Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and club with C.C. No. 1717/2013 which are pending on the file of 1st Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.
3. The same prayer sought for in T.A No. 3/2014 has been filed with a prayer to withdraw and transfer the C.C. Nos. 1859/2013 to C.C. No. 124/2014 pending on the file of 3rd Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to 1st Addl. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore.
4. Likewise T.A. No. 4/2014 has been filed with a prayer to withdraw and transfer the C.C Nos. 1896/2013 to C.C. No. 1898/2013 pending on the file of 3rd Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum with a direction to try along with the cases of 1st Addl. D.F., Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity.
(i) T.A No. 2/2014 has been filed by the Applicant/Opposite party against the 97 complaints on the file of 2nd Addl. D.F, Bangalore on various grounds.
(ii) T.A. No. 3/2014 has been filed by the Applicant/Opposite party against the 40 complaints on the file of 3rd Addl. D.F., Bangalore on various grounds.
(iii) T.A. No. 4/2014 has been filed by the Applicant/Opposite party against three complaints on the file of 3rd Addl. D.F., Bangalore on various grounds.
5. After hearing, emergent notice was ordered/issued to the respondents in all the three Transfer Applications. Few Advocates represented certain respondents in certain cases and in some cases the respondents/party in person appeared. The objections have been filed by the Counsel/party in persons to all the three Transfer Applications.
6. While arguing, the learned Counsel for the Applicant/opposite party is submitted that as per the provisions of the CP Act and Rules, the complaints came to be filed by the consumers which are below Rs. 20 lakh before the Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore and were allotted to four District Forums, Bangalore. Further, it is submitted that the matter in all the three transfer applications are similar in nature and pending before the various District Forums i.e. four District Forums and also submits that the several complaints are filed against the same applicant/OPs by the respondents/complainant. It is further argued that if all the four Forums are allowed to deliver the judgments in their own way, there may be conflict of judgments/orders which will cause prejudice to the litigants and also it causes aberrations of justice and it will certainly prejudice the complainants or the OPs. The post of the President and the Member of 2nd Addl. D. F. are vacant and it is learnt that the President of 3rd Addl. D.F. is retiring from the service within a short span of time. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and judgment, the appellant seeks for transfer of the said cases to the 1st Addl. D.F. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents, if the applications are allowed. Hence, the applicant has prayed for to allow all the three Transfer Applications.
7. Whereas the Counsel for the respondent/complainants have filed their objections and strongly contending that the Transfer Application filed by the Applicant/OP herein is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that no ground is made out that would justify or necessitate the transfer of the complaints from 2nd, 3rd and 4th Addl. D.F. to 1st Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The transferring of t
