Kerala High Court
V.Balakrishnan vs Swathy on 3 February, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:8590
W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 14TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 46874 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
V.BALAKRISHNAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O V.R.VISWANATHAN, NO.5, ARUNA NAGAR, SAVITHRI
NAGAR EXTENSION, THONDAMMUTHOOR BYE PASS ROAD,
SELVAPURAM, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 641026
BY ADVS.
BINOY VASUDEVAN
SREEJITH SREENATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 SWATHY
W/O SAJAN, AGED 31 YEARS, 15/282, DEVAGEETHAM,
LAL NAGAR, PUTHUPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678731
2 CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER
ASWIN ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS,
LAKSHMI GARDENS, COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTHANPET,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
BY ADVS.
K.MOHANAKANNAN
H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)(K/736/2011)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:8590
W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024
2
C.S.DIAS,J
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 46874 of 2024
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad in I.A. No.509/2024 in C.C. No.331/2023.
2. The petitioner is the second opposite party in the above complaint filed by the 1 st respondent for realization of money and other ancillary reliefs. On the application of the 1st respondent, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has filed a commission report. On the next day after the filing of the report, the 1st respondent had sought leave to amend the pleadings, to enhance the compensation 2025:KER:8590 W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024 3 amount from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.35,00,000/-. Even though the petitioner opposed the application, the Commission, without adverting any of the petitioner's contentions, allowed the application by Ext.P7 cryptic order. Ext.P7 is erroneous and unsustainable in law. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
4. The petitioner assails an interim order passed by the Commission, granting leave to the 1st respondent to amend the pleadings in the complaint; by enhancing the claim amount based on a commission report.
5. The petitioner's case is that, the commission report is illegal and he has filed an objection to the commission report. Even before the 2025:KER:8590 W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024 4 objection was considered, the 1st respondent's application for amendment was allowed.
6. Notwithstanding the settled law that amendment applications have to be liberally considered, it is well settled that the Consumer Protection Act is a self contained code. Section 41 of the Act provides for appeals against the orders passed by District Commission to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law.
7. Interpreting the analogous provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 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.
2025:KER:8590 W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024 5
8. 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 State Commission invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In view of the alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the exposition of law in the afore cited 2025:KER:8590 W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024 6 decisions, I am of the view that this Writ petition is not entertainable.
Resultantly, 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 SCB.03.02.25.
2025:KER:8590 W.P.(C)No.46874 of 2024 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 46874/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.331/2023 DATED 04- 12-2023 ExhibitP 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.216/2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED ON 12-01-2024 IN C.C.NO.331/2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.216/2023 DATED 03.06.2024 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.509/2024 IN C.C.NO.331/2023 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 13-09-2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-11-2024 IN I.A.NO.509/2024 IN C.C.NO.331/2023