AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is not necessary to give the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the present Petitioner had filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum, Kavaratti. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. At that time the State Commission in Lakshadweep was not functioning. The Complainant, therefore, filed this appeal before this Commission which has been treated as Revision Petition. Under the provisions contained in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 no direct appeal or revision lies before this Commission against the order of the District Forum. We have now been informed that State Commission, Lakshadweep has since been constituted and has started functioning, therefore, this petition is remitted to the State Commission which will treat this Revision Petition as appeal. The State Commission is requested to hear the appeal at Cochin. It may be mentioned here that the Complainant who is a Doctor has since been transferred from Lakshadweep to New Delhi and is posted in Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. As the Complainant has suffered on account of the absence of the State Commission, Lakshadweep we consider that the Central Government should pay to the complainant Rs. 4,000/- within four weeks to defray the travelling expenses of the Complainant to Cochin and back and we also direct that his period of absence from the Hospital for the purposes of attending the hearing in Cochin shall be treated as time spent on duty.
A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Departments concerned.