Complaint Details

Status	:	Closed
Complaint No	:	0031635/2014
Category	:	Travel
Date	:	15-09-2014
Subject Line	:	Whether NCDRC accepts 2nd Review on Transfer Appln.
Complainant	:	S Srinivasa Rao
Address	:	B--1105 Gardenia 'Grace' Sec.61 Noida--201307
Complainee	:	N.A.
Address	:	N.A.

Complaint Details
1. (i) That the Petitioner is an Agricultural Scientist (74 years) retired from NSC; IARI Pusa Campus, New Delhi and filed the present Appeal against the dismissal of his Review Petition for Transfer (T.C.12/13) by the National Commission for Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) of a Consumer Complaint against M/s Thomas Cook (India) Ltd in the District Consumer Forum, Gautam Budh Nagar District, U.P. to the District Consumer Forum (Central) ISBT, Delhi.
(ii) This is a bizarre case where NCDRC has created domestic discord and rift between the Petitioner and his wife as application for transfer submitted by the wife of the Petitioner (T.C. No.10/13) of a case involving ‘Gardenia Shelters Pvt Ltd, Noida has been transferred to Dist. Consumer Forum, New Delhi while the Petitioner’s application (T.C.No.12/13) related to ‘Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Noida for transfer to Dist. Consumer Forum, Delhi has been outright dismissed without any valid reason. It is important to note that both the applications strikingly similar and the grounds for transfer in both the cases were also serious heart ailments.
(iii) ‘Equality before law’ ought to have been the cardinal principle which has been given a good bye in this case and it is baffling as to how husband and wife are treated differently in the dispensation of justice by the NCDRC shattering the confidence and trust reposed in the Indian judicial system.
2. FACTS OF THE CASE:-
The Petitioner respectfully states that he had submitted the aforesaid Transfer Application to the President, NCDRC, New Delhi on 05-7-2013 as per the procedure laid down for the purpose. The grounds for transfer stated in the Transfer Application were as under:-
(i)“After suffering a massive heart attack, the Petitioner underwent ‘Angioplasty’ in Saroj Hospital, Rohini, Delhi on 13.3.2003 and dependent on life saving medicines. Annex.II
ii) Earlier, the Consumer Court was centrally located in between Secs.12-22, Noida which was easily accessible. Now, the Dist. Consumer Forum has been shifted to Greater Noida which is 30 km interior from the Petitioner’s residence and it is not well connected by public transport.
It is an arduous journey to cover such long distance as Party-in-Person each time due to poor health travelling by various modes of transport.
iii) It was therefore prayed to transfer the above case with compassion and on humanitarian grounds to the Dist. Consumer Forum (Central), ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as it is well connected by Metro Rail from Noida Central to ISBT, Delhi.”
iv) However, the transfer application was dismissed on 22nd July, 2013 with a cryptic remark that ‘No Ground for transfer of the case is made out’. Annex.III
v) The Petitioner had submitted for review of the dismissal of the case on 31st January, 2014 on the basis of equality / parity in justice as transfer petition filed by his wife, Smt. ABV Vijayalakshmi in a case against M/s Gardenia Shelters Pvt Ltd, Noida (T.A.No.10/13) has been favourably considered by the NCDRC on similar health grounds at the same time from the same Dist. Consumer Forum, Greater Noida to the Dist. Consumer Forum, New Delhi.
vi)It is a matter of great surprise that without carefully going into the facts, the Review Petition has also been dismissed by the NCDRC on 11th August, 2014. Annex.IV
vii) It may be of interest to know that NCDRC is not flooded by the transfer applications and only very few are received at an all India level.
viii) The proceedings in the District Consumer Forum, Greater Noida are conducted in ‘Hindi’ and the Petitioner being a South Indian, is not fluent with the language.
x) Computerisation has not been done in the Dist. Consumer Forum so far and even the daily cause lists are not displayed and the files are made topsy-turvy.
xii) The Petitioner has been attending the Dist. Forum, Greater Noida without any default for the last two years except for two days on 09-5-2014 and 24-6-2014 due to indisposition and Shri Ameet Baghel, Advocate volunteered to take up the case who had filed his vakalatnama also but failed to attend. The President of the Forum has seized the opportunity to dismiss the case on 27-6-2014 ex parte.
xii) After repeated requests, the case has been registered afresh [No.414/14 on 11—8—2014] in the same Forum.
P R A Y E R
WHETHER CONSUMER ACT 1986 ALLOWS NCRDC TO ACCEPT SECOND REVIEW PETITION?

Replies