AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. P. Sahi, President Member
In this transfer application the following order was passed on 30.01.2023:
“When the Case was taken up, nobody appears for the Applicant. Even on the earlier occasions also, nobody had appeared on behalf of the Applicant. It appears that the Applicant is not interested in pursuing the Application. The Application is dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty given to the Applicant to file an Application for recall of this Order/restoration of the Transfer Application, in the event, the Applicant is interested in pursuing the Application.”
Notices were issued on 29.03.2023 on the miscellaneous application.
Today again no one has appeared either to press the miscellaneous application or to address the court on this transfer application.
It is also evident from a perusal of the transfer application that the following statements were made seeking transfer:-
“7. Aggrieved by the above orders of the forum below, I preferred a revision bearing RP No. 79/14 before the Hon’ble AP State Commission by orders dated 10.07.2017, which was received by me on 4.8.2017 by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/- to be payable by me to the Respondents No. 12,22,24 and 116 therein apart from imposing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by me to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority. I reserve my right to file an appeal against the said orders before this Hon’ble Commission at appropriate time by way of separate proceedings apart from pursuing my other remedies i.e., PIL before the Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad.
I state that the consumer complaint bearing CC No. 98 of 2012 is still pending before the forum below. I state that the Hon’ble Bench is prejudiced against me and I do not hope any favourable orders from the Hon’ble Forum below. The case stands posted to 15.09.2017.”
The matter was continuing in the year 2017. The orders which were passed by the State Commission on 10.07.2017 seem to have not been challenged on merits and this transfer application has been moved making allegations in respect thereof to the effect that the applicant reserves his right to file an appeal before the appropriate forum or pursue the same through separate proceedings and through other remedies.
It is therefore clear that more than 6 years have passed by now, and there is nothing to indicate about any remedy being pursued against the order passed on 10.07.2017 by the State Commission. It is quite possible that all the presiding officers in 2017 might have demitted office by now. No prejudice as alleged seems to be continuing as on date.
It may further be pointed out that an order passed under these proceedings are protected under Section 28 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which reads as follows:
“28. 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.”
Thus the impugned order dated 10.07.2017 having not been challenged there is no occasion to infer any fact at this stage so as to enable the complainant to urge a surviving ground seeking transfer of the case. The application is accordingly rejected for reasons above and also for want of prosecution.