Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. We have heard Sri. Anwin John Antony, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Smt. K.R.Deepa, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent .

9. According to the appellant, it has already exhausted all the effective alternative remedies by way of statutory appeals as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and no further avenues for statutory appeal are available to the appellant and therefore, the learned single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy. It is also contended that, even if no objection is raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the complaint before the CDRF, that by itself will not confer automatic jurisdiction to the forum to entertain the complaint. According to the appellant, Exts.P8 and P10 orders are nullity and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and declared those orders as nullity. The learned counsel for the appellant took us to the definition of 'service' under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P.Shantha and Others [1995(6) SCC 651] to contend that service rendered at a Government hospital/health centre/dispensary where no charge whatsoever is made from any person availing the services and all patients (rich and poor) are given free service is outside the purview of the expression 'service' as defined in S.2(1) (o) of the Act and that the payment of a token amount for registration purpose only at the hospital/nursing home would not alter the position. The counsel for the appellant submitted that since the 3rd respondent is not a consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the orders of the CDRF and State Commission are liable to be set aside.

13. The 3rd respondent invoked the original jurisdiction of the District Forum under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by filing Ext.P4 complaint. The appellant, aggrieved by Ext. P8 order of the District Forum, preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission exercised appellate jurisdiction under section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Act and passed Ext. P10 order. Under section 19, an appeal shall lie to the National Commission only against an order of the State commission made in exercise of its original jurisdiction under section 17(1) (a) (i). To this extent, the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the National Commission has no appellate jurisdiction under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, still a revision would be maintainable against the order of the State Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 enables the National Commission 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 has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The learned Single Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since the appellant has an effective alternative remedy under the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order of the State Commission. The said finding does not require any interference for the reason that the remedy is by way of revision to the National Commission and not by means of an appeal. In view of the efficacious alternative remedy under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

17. When a forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory requirement.

18. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was repealed and new Act of 2019 came into force on 20.07.2020 and the new Act provides for an appeal to the National Commission from any order passed in appeal by the State Commission, if the National Commission is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; but is hedged with a condition that the appellant deposits fifty percent of the amount required under the order of the State Commission, whereas under the 1986 Act it was fifty percent or rupees thirty five thousand, whichever is less. The Apex Court, in Neena Aneja and another v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd (AIR 2021 SC 1441:2021 KHC 6168), has very elaborately considered the legislative scheme of the jurisdictional provisions of the 2019 Act, legislative intendment underlying section 107 of the 2019 Act dealing with 'Repeal and Savings' and the impact of the 2019 Act upon pending cases which were filed before the fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and held that proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20.07.2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 and not to be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the 2019 Act. The appellant in the said case instituted a consumer case before the National Commission on 18th June 2020. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force on 20th July 2020 and by section 58 (1) (a)

(i) of the said Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission was enhanced to rupees ten crores and above whereas it was rupees one crore and above under the 1986 Act. The National Commission by its order dated 30.07.2020 dismissed the consumer case filed under the erstwhile legislation on the ground that after the enforcement of the 2019 Act, its pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from one crore to ten crores. The appellant's review petition was also dismissed against which an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. While holding that the proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Apex Court considered the legislative intendment underlying section 107 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dealing with 'Repeal and Savings' and its interplay with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and held as follows:-