Kerala High Court
Sbi General Insurance Company Ltd vs Baby. M.T on 12 December, 2025
WA No.2753 of 2025
1
2025:KER:95425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO. 2753 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.08.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.30770 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT ERNAKULAM MADATHIKUNNEL
COMPLEX, KATHRIKADAVU JUNCTION, KALOOR, KOCHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CONSUMER LITIGATION
CLAIMS, PIN - 682017
BY ADV SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 BABY. M.T.
AGED 49 YEARS
SON OF THOMAS, MALATTEL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM.P.O.,
RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686663
2 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, ELECTRICAL
SECTION, PAMPAKUDA, PIN - 686667
BY ADV SRI.AJIT JOY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.2753 of 2025
2
2025:KER:95425
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
This appeal has been filed with a delay of 24 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay is allowed.
2. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 assails the judgment dated 23.08.2025 passed in WP(C) No.30770/2025 filed by the appellant whereby the Writ Petition has been dismissed without entering into the merits of the case and only in respect of the jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain the complaint.
Facts:-
3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1 st respondent/complainant's vehicle was detained by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, ie,. the 2nd respondent herein. In order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the amount as claimed, ie, Rs.68,437/-. The 1st respondent approached the appellant seeking re- WA No.2753 of 2025 3
2025:KER:95425 imbursement of the said amount as the vehicle was covered with an insurance package policy covering the third party risk including property damage etc. Since there was no re-imbursement from the appellant, the 1st respondent submitted a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC No.580/2023. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the District Commission was raised on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the disputes which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. The District Forum, after hearing the parties concerned, passed order dated 21.04.2025, rejected the said contention and held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellant herein, being aggrieved, has challenged the order passed by the District Consumer Forum on the ground that the District Commission erred in entertaining the complaint under the provisions of the Act of 2019 and had filed the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that by virtue of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is a clear bar in entertaining complaint of this nature by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The issue involved in this case is that the WA No.2753 of 2025 4 2025:KER:95425 compensation payable to a third party in a motor accident case, whether the District Commission has the authority to adjudicate in the proceedings under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Consumer Forum held that the complaint is maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this court in Writ Petition. However, the learned Single Judge came to the following conclusion:-
"14. Thus, after carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof, with reference to the grievance highlighted by the 1 st respondent in the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, I am of the view that, the question of jurisdiction was rightly decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and no interference is required. It is therefore held that, the District Commission is empowered to consider the grievances highlighted in the complaint, on merits.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the other contentions raised by the petitioner. It is clarified that the observations made in this judgment, are only with respect to the jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain the complaint and no findings on the sustainability of the claim of the 1st respondent on merits, are entered into by this court."
5. On perusal of the aforesaid, it can be seen that the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had powers to consider the grievance highlighted in the complaint on merits as well and therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order impugned in the Writ Petition was WA No.2753 of 2025 5 2025:KER:95425 contrary to a statutory provision and infringed the statutory rights of the parties concerned. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, irrespective of the availability of the alternative remedy. He further went on to contend that if an authority acts without jurisdiction, or in excess of its jurisdiction, this Court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the District Commission came to the conclusion that the contention of the appellant with regard to maintainability of the complaint, the application filed by 1 st and 2nd opposite party/appellant seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of maintainability has been dismissed.
6. The Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint itself ought not to have been entertained. The learned District Consumer Forum has committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and therefore, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents WA No.2753 of 2025 6 2025:KER:95425 opposed the prayer and submitted that the Writ Petition itself was not maintainable against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, inasmuch as Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2019 for short) provides for an appeal to the State Commission. Section 41 of the Act of 2019is reproduced below:
41. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:
"Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed: 1
9. Interpreting a similar provision in the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Division Bench of this Court in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission2 held that a Writ Petition challenging 1Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."
2 2021 (5) KHC 236 (DB) WA No.2753 of 2025 7 2025:KER:95425 the orders of the State Commission was not maintainable under Article 226 particularly, in view of the alternative remedy of revision available.
10. The Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that no appeal lies against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and therefore, such an order is final and binding. Hence the counsel for the respondents submits that the Writ Appeal lacks merits and no interference by this Court is warranted. Discussion and Analysis:-
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
12. The Division Bench of this Court in Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram (supra) has held that, since an effective alternative remedy is provided under the Consumer Protection Act, a writ petition is not maintainable against the order of the State Commission. Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act provides to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the national Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or WA No.2753 of 2025 8 2025:KER:95425 has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Admittedly, even if the order passed by the State Commission may have been in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law, Section 58(1)(b) clearly confers on the National Commission the power to examine the issue of jurisdiction.
13. Similarly, as held by the Apex Court in Regional Cancer Centre (Supra) that the National Commission has the power to decide the jurisdiction of the State Commission, Sec. 41 of the Act of 2019 gives powers to the State Commission as well to decide on the jurisdiction also.
14. In its recent judgment dated 12.11.2025 in Civil Appeal No.6719/2012, Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India3 the Apex Court reiterated that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should ordinarily not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy is available before the High Court under another jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the availability of such a statutory remedy renders a writ petition non-maintainable, observing:
"The principle, plainly, is that where a remedy is available to a party 3 2025 SCC Online SC 2510 WA No.2753 of 2025 9 2025:KER:95425 before the High Court in another jurisdiction, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not normally be invoked. Entertaining a writ petition in such circumstances would permit the statutory mechanism established by the concerned enactment to be bypassed."
15. After carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof with reference to the grievances highlighted by the 1st respondent in the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Consumer Forum has rightly decided the issue with regard to jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to other contentions raised by the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the State Commission has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and also to the decide the issue of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum.
16. With the aforesaid, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant would be at liberty to approach the State Commission within a period of 30 days from today, if so advised. The period spent before this Court in prosecuting the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition shall not be taken into account by the State Commission while WA No.2753 of 2025 10 2025:KER:95425 considering any application for condonation of delay etc., in accordance with law.
All interlocutory applications as regards interim matters stands closed.
sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE Nsd WA No.2753 of 2025 11 2025:KER:95425 APPENDIX OF WA NO. 2753 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P1 IN WP(C) 30770/2025