Madras High Court
M/S.Air Canada vs M/S.Arpee Garments on 2 July, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 MADRAS 201
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.07.2010
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2045 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
M/s.Air Canada
rep.by its Regional Director
Global Aviation Services Pvt.Ltd.
Chennai 600 002. Petitioner
Vs.
1. M/s.Arpee Garments
rep.by its Partner R.Natarajan
Dharapuram Road
Tiruppur
2. Kuwait Airways
rep.by its General Sales Agent
National Travel Service
Monteith Road
Chennai 600 008. Respondents
Civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No.77 of 2010 in FA SR.No.66 of 2010 against CC No.15 of 2004.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.A.Theagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.Rajah Kumaraguru
ORDER
Inveighing the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CMP No.77 of 2010 in FA SR.No.66 of 2010 against CC No.15 of 2004, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. Heard both.
3. Niggard and bereft of details, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The revision petitioner herein intended to prefer appeal before the State Consumer Redressal Commission impugning and challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai(South). However, there was a delay in filing such appeal and as such C.M.P.No.77 of 2010 in FA SR No.66 of 2010 in C.C.No.15 of 2004 was filed to get the delay condoned, along with the original appeal memorandum. Stay petition was also presented. It so happened that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide its order dated 27.05.2010 in C.M.P.No.77 of 2010, ordered thus:
Heard. Interim stay is granted subject to the condition that the petitioner/first opposite party shall deposit 50% of the award amount including the mandatory deposit already made, by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt, drawn in favour of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), in anyone of the Nationalised Bank, within the local limit, for a period of one year, on or before 28.06.2010, failing which, the stay shall stand dismissed automatically.
Call on 29.06.2010."
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed on the main ground that the CMP No.77 of 2010 was only an application to get the delay condoned in filing the appeal and it was not a stay petition. Whereas the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission assumed as though it was a stay petition and passed such order, as extracted supra.
Accordingly, reiterating the grounds as set out in the memorandum of revision, the learned counsel prays for setting aside that order.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would add, that day before yesterday the application to get the delay condoned in preferring the appeal was also dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consequent upon the earlier order dated 27.05.2010 having been not complied with by the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, while dealing with the application to get the delay condoned in filing the appeal, the court should not have simply dismissed that application on the ground that the order passed relating to stay was not complied with.
6. Placing reliance on the Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 185 (SC) (Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another vs. Praveen Kumar Singh) the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument that this court has got ample jurisdiction to rectify the error committed by the forum as otherwise it would be too difficult for the revision petitioner to go all along to New Delhi and file a revision as against the wrong orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
7. Per contra, by way of refuting and contradicting, gain saying and challenging the arguments and contentions as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this revision in view of the earlier two decisions of this court reported in
1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another) and
2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) and according to him there is no apparent error also in the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
8. The point for consideration is as to whether this court has got jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain this revision or not?
9. At the outset itself, I would like to refer to the two precedents cited on the side of the respondents and an excerpt from those two decisions would run thus:
1. 2002(1) CTC 15 (Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Madras 600 002 and two others vs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras-1 and another) "8. As far as the first submission is concerned,it is settled law that before approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is the bounden duty of a person to exhaust all alternate remedies. At the same time, it is not as if this court has no power to entertain the writ petition when there are alternate remedies. before entertaining such writ petition, courts will see whether alternate remedy available is effective and further whether the alternate remedy will be a long drawn process and whether the circumstances of the case required an immediate redressal to the affected person. In cases where there are clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice or when authorities act totally without jurisdiction, court will entertain writ petition and adjudicate the matter. But at the same time, it has to be pointed out that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not take up the exercise of examining the disputed question of fact and render factual finding. Normally once the writ petition is admitted, at the time of final disposal the court will not drive the parties to the appellate forum unless there are disputed questions of fact and when all required materials are available before court."
2. 2006(2) CTC 709 (R.Jaivel, the President Mettupatti Multi Purpose Worker's Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., Namakkal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Vellore) "16. Arguing upon maintainability of this revision petition, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner again relied upon G.Rajamani v Petchimuthu and others, 2003(1) CTC 300: 2003(2) LW 363 and submitted that inspite of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In those cases, the question as to the maintainability of a revision under Article 227 de hors the provisions made in Section 27 about the availability of appellate jurisdiction has not been dealt with; whereas the same was dealt with in a later case M/s.Max worth Homes Ltd. v. V.Raman 2005(2) CTC 258: 2005(3) LW 455, in the following line:
"The present order which is under challenge in the above revision came to be passed was only the said circumstances under Section 27 of the Act. As such it cannot be suggested that no appeal shall lie as against the said order. Even otherwise, Section 21(b) of the Act confers wide powers to the National Commission to call for records and pass appropriate orders in respect of any matter pending or orders passed by the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the light of such wide powers conferred upon the National Commission and in the light of the present facts on hand, I am not inclined to exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution."
A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the National forum under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by a party concerned; while so, invocation of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person as against the orders of the State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not lie.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would try to who tried to distinguish and differentiate those cited judgments with that of the facts now before this court by pointing out that in those precedents one could come across orders passed finally in interlocutory applications whereas in this case, no such order was passed and it is only an interim order passed and because of that alone trouble erupted.
11. I would like to point out that the distinction sought to be made by the learned for the revision petitioner is, one between tweedledum and tweedledee; between rock and a hard place; between six of the one and half a dozen of the other and not one between chalk and cheese. Whether it is an interim order or final order in interlocutory applications, this court clearly and categorically pointed out earlier in those cited precedents that once there is a special forum to exercise revisional as well as appellate powers under the Consumer Protection Act, then the general powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked.
12. In respect of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner supra, I would like to point out that in the said decision it has not been pointed out that despite the availability of the revisional forum for the aggrieved party concerned, to get redressal, he can approach the High Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. Hence, in this factual matrix, I am of the considered view that this court cannot interfere in this matter and entertain the revision and accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.07.2010 vj2 Index : Yes Internet: Yes To The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai (South) G.RAJASURIA,J vj2 C.R.P.(NPD).No.2045 of 2010 02.07.2010