Kerala High Court
Shoby Philip vs State Of Kerala on 1 April, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:27530
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.242 OF 2017
OF DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, KALPETTA
PETITIONER:
SHOBY PHILIP
AGED 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT KOCHUMATTATHIL, KANAKAPPALLI POST,
AMALAGIRI, PARAPPA. KASARGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671533
BY ADVS.
S.GOKUL BABU
KESHAVRAJ NAIR
GAADHA SURESH
ARUN M.V.
VISWANATH JAYAN
ASWIN S.
KARTHIK R.S.
SWETHA PANDALAY H.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM WAYANAD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WAYANAD, KERALA, PIN
- 673122
2025:KER:27530
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025
2
3 MINI ALEX
OLAPURAMUKKIL HOUSE, COLLEGE, KUPPADI POST, SULTAN
BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD, PIN - 673592
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:27530
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025
3
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayand ( Forum, in short).
2. The 3rd respondent had filed C.C.No.242/2017 before the Forum against the petitioner for recovery of money and compensation. By Ext.P2 order, the Forum allowed the complaint on 19.03.2018. The petitioner did not receive any notice in the complaint and he was totally unaware of the passing of Ext.P2 order. The Forum has not ensured that service of notice was complete on the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner received notice in Ext.P1 execution petition, that the petitioner has learnt about the passing of Ext.P2 order. As per Ext.P2 order, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.16,14,220/- along with interest at the rate of 15 % from the date of the complaint. The action 2025:KER:27530 WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025 4 of the Forum in passing Ext.P2 order is illegal and wrong. There is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (Act, in short) to review or modify the order of the Forum. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. On a scrutiny of the materials on record, it is evident that Ext.P2 order was passed on 19.03.2018. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent has filed Ext.P1 Execution Application on 05.11.2024, to execute Ext.P2 order. It is the case of the petitioner that, he was unaware about the filing of the complaint and passing of the order, since no notice was served on him. Therefore, Ext.P2 order is to be set aside.
5. Indisputably, Ext.P2 order was passed by the Forum invoking the powers under the Act, which is a self contained code. The Act provides for filing of appeal against the order passed by the Forum to the 2025:KER:27530 WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025 5 State Commission on the grounds of facts or law.
6. The Honourable Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524] has categorically held that the High Court shall not exercise its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the 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 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, 2025:KER:27530 WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025 6 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 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, by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm1/4/2025 2025:KER:27530 WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2025 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11457/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF EA NO. 41 OF 2024 IN CC NO. 242 OF 2017 DATED 5.11.2024 Exhibit P2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER IN CC 242 OF 2017 PASSED BY THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WAYANAD DATED 19.03.2018 PASSED BY THE CDRC, WAYANAD Exhibit P3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CC NO. 242 OF 2017 DATED 10.11.2017