Kerala High Court
K.V. Padmanabhan vs The Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, ... on 6 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR1992KER179, (1991) 2 CPR 505, AIR 1992 KERALA 179, (1992) 1 HINDULR 373, ILR(KER) 1992 (3) KER 723, (1992) ILR(KER) 1 KER 254, (1991) 2 KER LJ 388, (1991) 2 KER LT 367, (1992) 2 CIVLJ 426, (1992) 2 CIVLJ 429, (1992) 3 COMLJ 256, (1992) 1 DMC 55, (1991) ILR(KER) 3 KER 604, 1992 SC CRIR 131
ORDER S. Padmanabhan, J.
1. Petitioner is the sole respondent in Ext. P2 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent before the first respondent (Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam). Ext. P3 is the notice issued by the first respondent to the petitioner under Section 13 after receiving Ext, P2 complaint. This original peition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting that an appropriate writ may be issued to the first respondent quashing Exta. P2 and P3 on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P2 and issue Ext. P3. Second respondent entered appearance and filed objection.
2. The question now to be considered is whether the original petition is maintainable or not. For deciding that question I am not going into the controversy whether the allegations in Ext. P2 will constitute a consumer dispute entitling the first respondent to exercise jurisdiction. If the petitioner has a case, as alleged in this O.P., that the first respondent is not having jurisdiction, he could have raised that objection, before the first respondent itself on receiving Ext. P3. First respondent would be bound to decide that question by considering its own jurisdetion before proceeding further. If objection regarding jurisdiction is accepted by the first respondent, the matter may end there. If the decision is to the contrary, it is liable to be revised by the State Commission under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Under Section 17(b) the State Commission can call for records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by the District Forum within the State where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. That power is akin to that of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it could be exercised suo motu or on the application of party. As the wording of Section 17(b) indicates the jurisdiction can be exercised in pending proceedings also against an order. If the District Forum had assumed jurisdiction which it did not have, the order is liable to be revised by the State Commission.
3. The High Court is not a statutory appellate or revisional authority under the provisions of the Act. An order made by the District forum is appealable under Section 15 only before the State Commission. An order passed by the State Commission is appealable only before the National Commission under Section 19 and the order of the National Commission could be challenged in appeal only before the Supreme Court under Section 23.
4. In view of these statutory remedies which could operate a efficacious alternate remedies, I do not think an O.P. under Article 26 of the Constitution will lie. Remedy under Article 226 could be resorted to only in the absence of alternative efficacious remedies. The fact that High Court is not a statutory forum whereas Supreme Court is, has also to be taken into account. I am of opinion that the petitioner ought to have challenged jurisdiction before the State Forum itself and resorted to the revisional remedy under Section 17(b) if he failed before the District Forum. The O.P. fails for the reason that these available remedies were not resorted to. He wanted the short-cut method by-passing the District Forum and the State Commission.
The O.P. is therefore dismissed. No costs.