Jharkhand High Court
Ashok Kumar Thakur vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2020
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 3224 of 2018
Ashok Kumar Thakur ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Co-operative, Doranda, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar
4. Santosh Kumar Modi
5. Radhe Modi
6. Prayag Verma
7. Monoj Kumar Verma
8. Sita Devi
9. Tripurari Baranwal
10. Anil Kumar Barnwal
11. Mohan Lal Baranwal
12. Kanshi Nath Verma
13. Bishnulal Modi
14. Jaydeo Prasad Verma
15. Arun Kumar Verma
16. Goutam Kumar Verma
17. Rajendra Modi
18. Sumitra Devi
19. Badki Devi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sajjan Shammi Verma, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Shreenu Garapati, SC-III
-----
Order No. 07 Dated: 29.06.2020 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Deoghar (hereinafter to be referred as "Consumer Forum, Deoghar") in Consumer Case No. 89/2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 42,880/- by way of an insurance amount along with Rs. 8,000/- as physical harassment and Rs. 4,000/- as cost to the private respondents.
2. According to the petitioner, the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Consumer Forum, Deoghar is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. Moreover, the steps have been 2 taken hurriedly for execution of the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Consumer Forum, Deoghar as would be evident from the notice no. 163 dated 06.06.2018 issued by the Registrar, Consumer Forum, Doeghar in Execution Case No. 03/2018.
3. Mr. Shreenu Garapati, the learned SC-III appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, submits that the petitioner has an efficacious/alternative remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Consumer Forum, Deoghar and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has an efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the Consumer Forum, Deoghar, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take an appropriate recourse against the impugned judgment in accordance with law.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish