Kerala High Court
V.N. Radakrishnan vs James Antony on 24 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:24907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2014 IN CC NO.31 OF
2013 OF K.S.CONSUMER DISP.REDRESSAL,COMN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
V.N. RADAKRISHNAN
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, SANTHIMADOM,
CHAIRMAN M/S SANTHIMADOM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS TRUST,
REGD. OFFICE, SOUTH NALUVAZHY,
NORTH PARAVUR,
RESIDING AT SANTHIMADOM,
NORTH PARVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
ANOOP KRISHNA
V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
JENNY THANKAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 JAMES ANTONY
S/O ANTONY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE,
ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM PO,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679552
2 ELSAMMA JAIMES
W/O JAMES ANTONY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE,
ANGADI, KOTHAMANGALAM PO,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679552
3 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION AND AFFIRS,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2025:KER:24907
WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 2
BY ADVS.
ALEXANDER JOSEPH
AKHILASREE BHASKARAN(K/001344/2016)
ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO(K/001065/2022)
AJITH SUNNY(K/003297/2023)
OTHER PRESENT:
DSGI SRI T C KRISHNA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24907
WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2025 The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext. P1 judgment dated 28.11.2014, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'Commission'), Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The petitioner is the Chairman of the M/s Santhimadom Builders and Developers, which is registered under the Trust Act. The petitioner had carried out the construction of villas for the respondents 1 and 2 for Rs. 85,75,000/-. The land was registered in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. The construction has been carried out. After that, the respondents 1 and 2 filed a complaint before the Commission, which was allowed by Ext. P1 judgment. Since the completion certificate has been issued, respondents 1 and 2 are not consumers. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 2025:KER:24907 WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 4 is illegal. Ext. P1 judgment is erroneous and wrong. Hence, Ext. P1 may be quashed.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that, the writ petition is not entertainable by this Court in view of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Even though the respondents 1 and 2 had paid the petitioner Rs. 85,75,000/-, he had not identified, located or handed over the possession of the property. It was in the said background that the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a complaint before the Commission, which was allowed by Ext. P1 judgment. Ext. P1 judgment has attained finality. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed E.P. No. 14/2015 before the Commission to execute the judgment. A warrant for the arrest was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the said order before this Court by filing Crl. M.C. No.5241/2018. The said application was dismissed by Ext. R1(a) order. It is by 2025:KER:24907 WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 5 suppressing these facts that the writ petition is filed. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard.
5. The materials on record substantiate that Ext. P1 judgment was passed by the Commission as early as on 28.11.2014, directing the petitioner to pay the respondents Rs. 84,35,000/- with interest @ 15% per annum.
6. It is nearly ten years after the passing of the judgment that the present writ petition is filed assailing Ext. P1 judgment. The Consumer Protection Act (for short, 'Act'), 1986, is a self contained code. The Act specifically provides for an appeal to the National Commission. It is without resorting to said statutory remedy that the petitioner has approached this Court, that too after ten years.
6. Interpreting the provisions of the Act, the Honourable Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v.
2025:KER:24907 WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 6 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 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 2025:KER:24907 WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 7 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 this writ petition.
In the said circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE mtk/24.03.25 2025:KER:24907 WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2024 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33222/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO 31 /2013 OF STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28.11.2014 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.
15752 OF 2024 DATED 12.04.2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2023 IN CRL MC NO 5241/ 2018 OF THIS HONBLE COURT