G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the opposite parties in consumer Dispute No. 40 of 1999 on the file of the District forum, Sanga Reddy, Medak District, under the Consumer protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE third respondent made a complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the revision petitioners before the District forum praying either to release the tractor seized by the opposite parties in good condition by directing the opposite parties to receive the amount due to him or to refund the amount of Rs. 1,82,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 06-10-1997 till the date of realization with costs. ( 3 ) THE following are the complaint averments in brief: the complainant is an agriculturist. He purchased a tractor on hire purchase basis from the first petitioner by depositing Rs. 1,18,000/- and executing an hire purchase agreement. The Tractor was delivered to him on 11-09-1996. The complainant paid Rs. 1,82,000/- along with the deposit of rs. 1,18,000/- from 10-09-1996 to 19-06-1997. As on July 1997 rs. 93,810/- was due to the petitioners with interest thereon. Subsequently, the complainant could not repay the loan instalments due to continuous drought and addressed the opposite parties for time for payment of the instalments. The opposite parties did not give any time for payment and seized the tractor on 04-09-1997 without any prior notice or opportunity. When he went to the office of the opposite parties for release of the tractor they served a notice on him demanding to pay the entire outstanding loan amount. Accordingly, on 06-10-1997 the third respondent went to the opposite party firm for payment of the amount due to him but the firm was kept closed and whereabouts of the partners was also not known. The third respondent came to know that on account of some criminal cases, the partners of the firm absconded from the respective places. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to release the tractor by collecting the amount due to them. Hence, the complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE District Forum after considering the evidence of P. W. 1 and perusing Exs. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to release the tractor by collecting the amount due to them. Hence, the complaint for the reliefs as mentioned above. ( 4 ) THE District Forum after considering the evidence of P. W. 1 and perusing Exs. A-1 to A-16 documents allowed the complaint by holding that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to release the tractor in good condition by taking the amount due to them within two months from the date of the order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to receive rs. 1,18,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 06-10-1997 till the date of realization with costs of Rs. 1,000/ -. The opposite parties, being aggrieved by the order of the District forum dated 31-01-2000, preferred F. A. (S. R.) No. 1561 of 2000 before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Redressal commission; Hyderabad along with a delay condonation petition covered by F. A. I. A. No. 1311 of 2000 to condone the delay of 91 days in preferring the appeal. The State Commission dismissed the application through its order dated 31-03-2001 not only on the ground of non-explanation of the delay, but also on merits. The petitioners, being aggrieved- by the order of the State commission, preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition before the High Court is maintainable against the order of the state Commission and whether the order of the State commission dated 31-03-2001 is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE third respondent made a complaint before the District forum and the Forum allowed the same by granting the reliefs sought for by holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. When the opposite parties preferred the appeal, the State Commission while considering the application for condonation of the delay also considered the merits and dismissed the application. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent represented that had the revision petitioners been aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, they ought to have approached the national Commission and the revision against the order of the state Commission is not maintainable before the High Court. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent represented that had the revision petitioners been aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, they ought to have approached the national Commission and the revision against the order of the state Commission is not maintainable before the High Court. ( 8 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the present revision can be maintained against the order of the State Commission, therefore, the revision petition is not liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. ( 9 ) IN order to set at rest the issue regarding the maintainability of the revision petition, we wish to refer to the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. ( 10 ) THE object of the Act is to provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes. A quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies observe the principles of natural justice and are empowered to give reliefs of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. The special enactment created various quasi-judicial tribunals intending to supplement the existing judicial system. Therefore, the parties to the disputes are expected to redress their grievances through these quasi-judicial tribunals without approaching regular courts by deviating the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Act. As per Section 9, consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies were created by designating them as District Forum at District level, State commission at State level, and National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission at National level. Section 15 of the Act provides for an appeal against the order of the District Forum. Section 15 reads as follows:"15. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the district Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the state Commission within a period of thirty 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 thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing It within that period. " ( 11 ) SECTION 17 is the relevant provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the State Commission. " ( 11 ) SECTION 17 is the relevant provision dealing with the jurisdiction of the State Commission. As per Section 17, the state Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaints, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. ( 12 ) IT has the power to entertain appeals against the orders of the District Forum within the State and has a revisional power by way of calling for the records and passing appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State. If the order passed by the District Forum was in exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested on it or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Section 19 provided for preferring appeals to the national Commission against the orders of the State commission. Section 19 of the Act" reads as follows:"19. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the state Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub- clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be prescribed: provided that the National Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. " ( 13 ) SECTION 21 of the Act prescribed the jurisdiction of the national Commission. Section 21 reads as follows:"21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. " ( 13 ) SECTION 21 of the Act prescribed the jurisdiction of the national Commission. Section 21 reads as follows:"21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction,-- (a) to entertain,-- (i) complaints, where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs; and (ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and - (b) 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 exercise a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. " ( 14 ) SECTION 21 is similar to Section 17 of the Act. But the only difference is that Section 17 prescribed the jurisdiction of the state Commission, whereas Section 21 prescribed the jurisdiction of the National Commission. Whenever an order is passed by the State Commission by exercising jurisdiction not vested in it by law or failing to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acting in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, a revision can be carried to the National Commission and the National Commission by exercising its powers under section 21 (b) may examine the records of the State commission and pass appropriate orders. ( 15 ) WHENEVER an order is passed by the National Commission section 23 provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Under the Scheme of the Act, no role has been assigned to the High court. The High Court is empowered to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, despite the availability of an alternative remedy. The opposite party, instead of carrying the matter to the National commission, approached this Court through this revision petition. Since the Act does not provide for entertaining a revision by the High Court, the present revision petition cannot be maintained. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection act, 1986. Since the Act does not provide for entertaining a revision by the High Court, the present revision petition cannot be maintained. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection act, 1986. However, the dismissal of this revision is no bar to the petitioners to agitate about their rights by resorting to any remedy available under the Act.