Written Objection by the Consumer Complainant in Consumer Case

 

District : South 24 Parganas.

Before the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

C.C. no. 415 of 2013.

In the matter of :

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh,

____Complainant / Petitioner.

-          Versus –

The Secretary, South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, and others.

                ______Respondents / Opposite Parties.

 

Written objection of the Complainant / Petitioner Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, against the petition on the maintainability placed by the Respondent / Opposite Party no.2, herein.

 

The humble petition of the above named petitioner / complainant, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, most respectfully ;

 

Sheweth as under :

 

1.   That the petition for maintainability, as cited “ An advocate for maintainability of the petitioner”, placed by the O.P. no.2, herein, is not maintainable in its present form.

 

2.   That the said Petition is speculative, harassing, motivated and barred by the Principles of Law and hence it is liable to be rejected at once.

 

3.   That the contents as described in the paragraph nos. 1 to 6, of the said petition of o.p. no.2, are hereby denied and disputed specifically, and the petitioner do not admit such contentions in any manner, whatsoever, and put the o.p. no.2, on strict proof therof.

 

4.   That the cause of action has been well described and furnished in the petition of complaint, and the same is well under the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum to try and or adjudicate, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986, and rules made there under.

 

5.   That your petitioner states and submits that The National Commission has held in the case of Dr.S.P.Thirumalai Rao vs. Municipal Commissioner of Mysore Corporation, Mysore reported in III (2012) CPJ Page 72 that section 22 of RTI Act does not have any overriding effect on the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  On the question of bar of jurisdiction of courts the National Commission has held that section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides an additional remedy that the bar of jurisdiction under this section is only against the courts as also in respect of the order made under the act but in this case the averment of the complainant is that the opposite party had not passed any order on account of which the question of bar of jurisdiction does not arise.  The National Commission has held in the above case that the complainant had availed of services under the said Act for consideration by paying fee and had sought information under the said act which was not supplied to him which amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant is thus a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act. 

 

6.   That your petitioner states and submits that The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Vs. M.Madhusudhan Reddy and Another reported in (2012) 3 MLJ Page 166 (SC) that the remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to the consumer.  Rather it is an optional remedy.  He can either seek reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. If the complainant opts for the remedy of arbitration then it may not be possible to say that he cannot subsequently file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.  However if he chooses to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he cannot be denied relief by invoking section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.  Moreover the plain language of Section 3 of the Consumer Act makes it clear that the remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 

 

7.   That your petitioner states and submits that On the same analogy if appeal provision is available in the Act, the Hon’ble Forum cannot compel the complainant to file a complaint before the appellate authority, since U/s.3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy available is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

 

8.           That your petitioner states and submits that The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. Universal Exports and another reported in 2011(8) MLJ Page 570 that the protection provided under Consumer Protection Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute.  It does not extinguish the remedies under another statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy. 

 

9.           That  your petitioner states and submits that  In the case of Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha reported in 2004 (IV) M.L.J. Page 94 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the trend of the decisions of this Court is that the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is an express provision prohibiting the Consumer Forum to take up the matter which falls within the jurisdiction of civil court or any other Forum as established under some enactment.  The above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that since there is another remedy is available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority the Hon’ble Forum, cannot direct the complainant to approach the appellate authority and there is no bar in taking the case on file by the Consumer Forum. 

 

10.        That your petitioner states and submits that In the above circumstances the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and just because there is appeal provision in the Right to Information Act, the complainant is not barred to file a case before the Consumer Forum since U/s.3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy available to a consumer is an optional remedy and it is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. 

 

11.        That your petitioner states and submits that in view of established principal of Law, and as precedent of the Hon’ble Apex Court and others, the petition of maintainability, placed by the O.P. no. 2, should be rejected at once, and with exemplary effective costs and others.

 

12.        That this application is made bonafide in the interest of administration of justice.

 

It is therefore prayed that your Honour would graciously be pleased to allow this application and to dismiss and or reject the application / petition of maintainability, placed by the O.P. no.2, herein, with an exemplary effective costs, and or to pass such other necessary order or orders as your Honour may deem, fit, and proper for the end of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound shall ever pray.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verification

 

I, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, being the Complainant / Petitioner, herein in the above referred proceedings, made this Written objection application / petition, against the petition of maintainability, placed by the O.P. no.2, herein in the above referred proceeding, and verify this present petition / application as on 16^th day of December’ 2013, at Alipore Judges’ Court premises.

 

 

SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH.

Identified by me,

 

Advocate.

Prepared in my Chamber,

 

Advocate.

Date : 16^th day of December’ 2013.

Place : Alipore Judges’ Court.