Kerala High Court
M. Bhaskaran Nair vs K. Damodaran Nair on 21 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:24126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 M. BHASKARAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O M. KRISHNAN NAIR,
R/AT UKKIRAMPADY,
P.O. THEKKIL FERRY, CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DIST., PIN - 671541
2 E. GOPALAN
AGED 69 YEARS
2.S/O CHANDU NAIR,
R/AT MOODAMBAIL MANHANGAL,
P.O. THEKKIL,
KASARAGOD DIST., PIN - 671541
BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 K. DAMODARAN NAIR
S/O A. CHANDU NAIR,
R/AT ARATTUKADAVU, BEDADKA VILLAGE,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
2 KUNDAMKUZHI SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCING COMPANY (REG.)
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
3 B.K. KUTTY
S/O KUNHAPPA, KUNHIRATHAMGAL,
BEDADKA, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
4 M. GANGADHARAN NAIR
S/O SHANKARAN NAIR, R/AT SREENILAYAM,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
2025:KER:24126
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 2
5 K. NARAYANAN,
S/O PAKKEERAN MANIYANI,
THOTTIYIL HOUSE,
BEDADKA, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
6 P. JAYACHANDRAN
S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, JAYALAKSHMI,
KALAKKARA, KUTTIKOLE,
P.O. CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 670562
7 A.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
S/O LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, CHOTTATHOL HOUSE,
VATTANTHATTA, KASARAGODE, PIN - 671542
8 V. GANGADHARAN NAIR,
8.S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
MINAMKULAM NHKIYAR, IRIYANNAL,
P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671542
9 K. MURALIDHARAN NAIR
9.S/O CHANDU NAIR, MALAMKADU,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24126
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Exts. P2 and P2(a) show cause notices issued against the petitioners by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'Commission'), Kasaragod, in EA Nos. 58/2005 and 57/2005.
2. The first respondent had filed O.P. No.168 and 169 of 2004 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, for the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner and other opposite parties arrayed in the complaint. The petitioners are the Directors of the second respondent Company. The petitioners do not hold any property of the second respondent company and are not personally liable for the liabilities of the second respondent. The petitioners did not contest the proceedings and did not enter into any 2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 4 compromise. The Forum was under the impression that the Directors of the second respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the liability of the second respondent. Accordingly, on the basis of a compromise that was entered into between some of the Directors, the Forum allowed the complaints by Ext. P1(a) common order, directing the Company and all its Directors to pay Rs. 75,000/- each with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the dates of the complaints till the date of realisation. Subsequently, the first respondent has filed E.A. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2005 to execute the common order. Now, the Commission has issued Exts. P2 and P2(a) show cause notices to the petitioners to appear on 09.08.2024. In the absence of any personal liability, the petitioners are not liable to pay any amount. Therefore, all further proceedings, pursuant to Exts. P2 and P2(a) are without jurisdiction. Hence, Exts. P2 and P2(a) may be quashed.
2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 5
3. Heard; Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on admission.
4. The materials on record substantiate that O.P. No. 168/2004 was filed by the first respondent, and O.P. No. 169/2004 was filed by one Sreejesh A.K, who is not made a party in the writ petition. Be that as it may, Ext. P1(a) common order shows that the complaints were allowed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the two complainants, the second respondent and some of its Directors, whereby some of the Directors agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- each to the complainants, failing which all the opposite parties would be held jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount with interest.
5. A reading of Ext. P1(a) common order shows that the petitioners were set ext-parte; yet, the Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaints on the basis of the compromise by the complainants and the 2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 6 contesting opposite parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have not challenged Ext. P1(a) common order passed two decades back. Ext. P2 series show cause notices show that the execution applications are pending since 2005 onwards. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the show cause notices issued on 09.07.2024, directing them to appear before the Commission on 09.08.2024. The petitioners contend that they are not personally liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned common order.
6. In Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the High Court shall not exercise its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, in view of the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act.
7. In Regional Cancer Center, Tvm v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 7 Tvm and Others [2021 (5) KHC 236] a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:
"14. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a self contained and a complete mechanism for redressal of the consumers related grievances by filing complaint, appeal and revision from the District Forum up to the Supreme Court subject to limits of jurisdiction provided therein. When hierarchy of remedies are provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appellant has to avail the remedy under the said Act. Ext.P10 order passed by the State Commission is revisable before the National commission under S.21(b). The appellant having contested the claim before the CDRF on merits and subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the CDRF and further elected the remedy available to it by challenging the order of the CDRF before the State Commission by preferring appeal under S.15 of the Act, cannot switch over to another remedy in midway, even assuming such remedy by way of a writ petition is available to the appellant. We find no exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances warranting interference with the order of the State Commission invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India."
8. In the light of the fact that Ext. P1 common order attained finality two decades back, the petitioners have not bothered to contest the proceedings on its merits, the exposition of the law in the above decision and the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners, 2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 8 I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and exercise the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition, by leaving open the right of the petitioners to work out their statutory remedies, if any available, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/21.03.25 2025:KER:24126 WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11501/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP.168/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 02/12/2004 EXHIBIT 1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN AND OP NO.169/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 13/10/2004 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO. 58/2005 IN OP.NO.168/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 09/07/2024 AND TYPED COPY EXHIBIT 2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO.57/2005 IN OP NO.169/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 09/07/2024 AND TYPED COPY