M/S Ken Builders vs Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 17 January, 2025

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S Ken Builders vs Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 17 January, 2025

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                     2025:KER:3564
WP(C) NO. 1947 OF 2025            1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 27TH POUSHA, 1946

                      WP(C) NO. 1947 OF 2025


PETITIONER:
           M/S KEN BUILDERS
           CP NO:XV-930,PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL VILLAGE,
           KANNUR-670 011,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHAHUL HAMEED C.P.
           S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ HAJI, AGED 54 YEARS,
           RESIDING AT C.P. HOUSE, P.O.
           CHIRAKKAL KANNUR, PIN - 670011

          BY ADVS.
          ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
          E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
          PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
          SOORYA K.



RESPONDENTS:
     1     CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
           VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695014

    2     VINESH KARAYAN CHITTAYIL
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/OVIJAYAN K.P, FIVE STAR,
          CHETTIPEEDIKA, PALLIKUNNU,KANNUR, PIN - 670004

    3     M/S MIR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD
          M BUILDING, KALABHAVAN ROAD,
          ERNAKULAM NORTH-KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
          DIRECTOR, PIN - 682018

          SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE- GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                 2025:KER:3564
WP(C) NO. 1947 OF 2025         2



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2025 The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Exts. P1 judgment and P6 order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'Commission'), Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The second respondent had filed Ext. P4 complaint before the Commission against the petitioner and the third respondent for compensation. By Ext. P1 judgment, the Commission had allowed the complaint by directing the petitioner and the third respondent to pay Rs. 33,82,944/- with interest and compensation to the second respondent. Aggrieved by Ext. P1 Judgment, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 review petition. However, by Ext. P6 order, the Commission dismissed the review petition. Exts. P1 judgment and P6 order are erroneous.

3. Heard.

4. Indisputably, Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P6 2025:KER:3564 WP(C) NO. 1947 OF 2025 3 order have been passed by the Commission in exercise of its powers under the Consumer Protection Act, ('Act', in short) 1986. The Act is a self-contained code. Section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal to the National Commission.

5. Interpreting the provisions of the Act, 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.

6. 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 2025:KER:3564 WP(C) NO. 1947 OF 2025 4 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."

7. In view of the alternative statutory remedy provided under the Act and the exposition of law in the afore stated decisions, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.

Sd/-

123/2018 DATED 18.06.2024 BEFORE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01.02.2007 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.12.2011 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.123/2018 BEFORE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO.

25/2024 BEFORE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 25/2024 DATED 25.10.2024 BEFORE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.

21/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court