Kerala High Court
Cheloor Property Development Projects ... vs The District Consumer Disputes ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:14642
WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
CHELOOR PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS LTD.
SANKARANKULANGARA JUNCTION, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR. C.R.
RAMDAS, S/O RAVI CHELOOR, AGED 56, GOKULAM,
CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
BY ADVS.
V.N.SANKARJEE
V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
JOSEPH FREEMAN
R.UDAYA JYOTHI
ANWIN JOHN ANTONY
KEERTHI B. CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
THRISSUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, OUTPOST ROAD,
IYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
2 K.B. BALAKRISHNA MENON
AGED 77, FLAT NO. 11 AND 12D, CHELOOR CITADEL,
SANKARANKULANGARA JUNCTION, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680002
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. B.S.SYAMANTHAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:14642
WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 execution petition on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur ('Forum', for short).
2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in Ext.P5 execution petition filed by the second respondent. The second respondent had filed C.C.No.278/2016 before the Forum, against the petitioner, which was allowed by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (State Commission,) which was partly allowed by Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner had preferred R.P.No.110/2022 2025:KER:14642 WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024 3 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner has also filed an application to stay Exts.P2 and P3 orders. In the meantime, the second respondent has put Exts.P2 and P3 to execution before the Forum. The Forum has proceeded with the execution petition. The second respondent has been examined and the petitioner has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The action of the Forum in entertaining Ext.P5 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Ext.P5 execution petition is filed to execute Exts.P2 and P3, which as of now, is not stayed. Therefore, there is no legal bar in the second respondent executing the order.
5. Indisputably, the order has been passed by the Forum in exercise of its powers under the Consumer 2025:KER:14642 WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024 4 Protection Act, 1986. Even though the petitioner challenged the order in appeal, the same was also dismissed. It is reported that the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the National Commission, but no stay order has been produced till date.
6. Interpreting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Honourable Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524] 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 Act because of the alternative remedy contained in the Act.
7. In Regional Cancer Center, Tvm v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 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 2025:KER:14642 WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024 5 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 view of the alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, and the exposition of law in the afore cited decisions, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to work out its remedies in accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm20/2/2025 2025:KER:14642 WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40360/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2806/2013 DATED 5.6.2013 OF THE S.R.O., THRISSUR Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2018 IN C.C. NO.278/2016 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.2.2020 IN APPEAL NO.665/2018 OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.110/2022 WITH THE APPLICATION FOR STAY ON THE FILE OF THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION DATED 22.11.2018 IN C.P.S.T. NO.257/2018 IN C.C. NO.278/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 8.8.2024 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THRISSUR WITH DEMAND DRAFT NO.156486 DATED 6.8.2024 DRAWN ON THE FEDERAL BANK, THRISSUR-POONKUNNAM BRANCH Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20.3.2021 SENT BY THE CITADEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S MANAGING COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24.3.2021 2025:KER:14642 WP(C) NO. 40360 OF 2024 7 ISSUED BY THE CITADEL OWNERS' ASSOCIATION'S MANAGING COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS' LETTER DATED 10.10.2024 WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS (3 IN NUMBER), POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT (1 IN NUMBER) AND THE POSTAL ARTICLE RETURNED UNSERVED (2 IN NUMBER) Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S AFFIDAVIT AND DEPOSITION IN CROSS EXAMINATION DATED 6.5.2024 Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S STATEMENT DATED 8.8.2024 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 313 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973