This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, made in Tr.O.P.No.1 of 2016 in C.C.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvannamalai.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
3. Petitioner and fourth respondent are the first & second complainants and respondents 1 to 3 are the opposite parties in C.C.No.6 of 2014 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner has filed Tr.O.P.No.1 of 2016 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, for transferring the complaint pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvannamalai, to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai.
4. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a practising advocate in Chennai and he finds it very difficult to travel from Chennai to Thiruvannamalai to attend each and every hearing. The distance between Chennai and Thiruvannamalai is more than 200 kilometers and it takes more than four hours to reach Thiruvannamalai. The advocate engaged by him at Thiruvannamalai is also not attending the hearing. Therefore, the petitioner is attending each and every hearing at Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner also submitted that there is no presiding officer in the District Forum, Thiruvannamalai and complaint is not taken up for disposal.
5. The third respondent filed counter statement opposing the said petition.
6. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, considering the averments made in the affidavit, counter affidavit and materials available on record, dismissed Tr.O.P.No.1 of 2016 on the ground that strenuous efforts are being taken to fill up the post of Presiding Officers, District Forum, all over Tamil Nadu and even at one of the District Forums, Chennai, there is no redressal officer. The pendency of the District Forum, Chennai, is more than that of the District Forum at Thiruvannamalai. The jurisdiction of the complaint is only at Thiruvannamalai and complaint can be disposed only at Thiruvannamalai.
7. Challenging the order of dismissal dated 11.04.2017 made in Tr.O.P.No.1 of 2016, the petitioner has come out with the present civil revision petition.
8. The reason given by the petitioner for transferring C.C.No.6 of 2014 is not acceptable and valid. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, has considered all the above reasons and rejected the same. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvannamalai, is directed to dispose the complaint in C.C.No.6 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than, four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.