Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 668 (MAD)

Lakshmi General Finance Ltd. v. K. R. Palaniappan

2007-02-22

K.VENKATARAMAN

body2007
Judgment : K. Venkataraman, J. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, the third respondent herein, from trying C.O.P. No.473 of 2004 on its file. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent has availed finance facility from the petitioner for purchase of lorry on hire purchase basis. The hire purchase agreement dated 16.10.1999 has been entered into between them. As on 7.12.2004, a sum of Rs.19,531/- is due from the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner declined to grant No Objection Certificate to the first respondent herein for renewal of permit. Since the petitioner herein has declined to issue such Certificate, the first respondent has filed a Complaint in C.O.P. No.473 of 2004 on the file of the 3rd respondent-District Forum for directing the petitioner and the second respondent herein to have the lorry permit renewed and for other relief. Further, the first respondent has filed M.P. No.403 of 2004 praying to direct the respondents in the said C.O.P. to renew the permit without insisting on the No Objection Certificate from the petitioners. The District Forum has allowed the said Application and hence, the petitioner has filed C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No.32 of 2005 before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. The petitioner has been advised to file the present writ petition, since the District Forum lacks jurisdiction to try the Complaint filed by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent resisted the writ petition contending that: (a) When the petitioner is defending/prosecuting the C.O.P. that has been filed by the first respondent and having faced an adverse order in M.P. No.403 of 2004 and furthermore having filed C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No.32 of 2005 questioning the said order, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition; (b) The District Forum has got every right to decide the C.O.P. that has been filed by the first respondent. The petitioner without filing an Appeal as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act has not only filed the Civil Revision Petition against the order passed by the District Forum, but also approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition. 4. The petitioner without filing an Appeal as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act has not only filed the Civil Revision Petition against the order passed by the District Forum, but also approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent has drawn my attention to the judgment Lucknow Development Authority v. M Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787 : (1994) 1 SCC 243 : (1994) 1 MLJ 55 , wherein it has been held follows: "But before doing so and examining the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum or State or National Commission to entertain a Complaint under the Act, it appears appropriate to ascertain the purpose of the Act, the objective it seeks to achieve and the nature of social purpose it seeks to promotes as it shall facilitate in comprehending the issue involved and assist in construing various provisions of the Act effectively. To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers. Use of the word `protection furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory." The S.L.P. filed by the Lucknow Development Authority therein has been dismissed fielding that they are responsible for causing harassment and mental agony to the respondent therein. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent has cited another decision reported has cited another decision reported in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Sunil Kumar Bansal and Another, 2002 (1) CPR 52 (NC), wherein the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi has held that advancing loan has been held to be very much a service within the definition of `service under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. As could be seen from the above facts, the first respondent has preferred the C.O.P. before the District Forum and interim order has been passed by the District Forum. 6. As could be seen from the above facts, the first respondent has preferred the C.O.P. before the District Forum and interim order has been passed by the District Forum. Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred C.R.P. (PD) (MD) No. 32 of 2005. At the same time, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai from trying C.O.P. No. 473 of 2004 on its file. Against the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner has got remedy by way of filing an Appeal as provided under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. Without exhausting the remedy, the petitioner has not only filed the Civil Revision Petition questioning the order passed by the District Forum, but also filed the present writ petition. The petitioner can very well forge on the ground of jurisdiction also before the Appellate Authority; I have already held in C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No. 32 of 2005 that the petitioner can very well question the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai in M.P. No. 403 of 2004 in C.O.P. No. 473 of 2004 dated 5.1.2005 before the Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 15 of the said Act. 7. Hence, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. There is no order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an Appeal before the Appellate Authority questioning the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redress Forum, Madurai dated 5.1.2005 in M.P. No. 403 of 2004 in C.O.P. No. 473 of 2004. Writ petition dismissed.