Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1146 (DEL)

Cox and Kings (I) Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Mittal

2008-12-10

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2008
JUDGMENT: 1. By these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed orders dated 7th January 2008 and 6th February 2008 passed by the State Commission upholding the orders of District Consumer Forum for payment of compensation to respondent. The petitioner has prayed that this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by the State Commission as the same being perverse, inequitable and unreasonable and in violation and disregard of the settled principles of law. 2. The petitioner is a company carrying on business of arranging travels and tours within India as well as abroad. The respondents in these petitions had booked tours with the petitioners. Finding that the petitioner committed multifarious deficiencies due to which their pleasure trip had turned into a misery trip, they made complaints before the District Forum. The District Forum after considering the entire facts and material awarded compensation to each of the respondent for causing harassment to the respondents on account of deficiency of service, plus cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the petitioner preferred appeals before the State Commission who dismissed the same in limine and passed the impugned orders. Hence these petitions. 3. Notice of the petitions was served upon the respondents who raised an issue about the jurisdiction of this court to entertain these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and argued on maintainability as well as on the merits. However, I would like to first deal with the issue of jurisdiction. 4. The scope of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is now well settled. The Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and ors AIR 2003 SC 3044 observed as under: ‘26. In order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. The High Court may have regard to legislative policy formulated on experience and expressed by enactments where the Legislature in exercise of its wisdom has deliberately chosen certain orders and proceedings to be kept away from exercise of appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the hope of accelerating the conclusion of the proceedings and avoiding delay and procrastination which is occasioned by subjecting every order at every stage of proceedings to judicial review by way of appeal or revision. So long as an error is capable of being corrected by a superior court in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction though available to be exercised only at the conclusion of the proceedings, it would be sound exercise of discretion on the part of the High Court to refuse to exercise power of superintendence during the pendency of the proceedings. However, there may be cases where but for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction, the jurisdictional error committed by the inferior court or tribunal would be incapable of being remedied once the proceedings have concluded.’ 5. It is also settled law that this court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate the evidence and cannot draw an alternative inference nor can correct errors of the merely formal and technical character. This jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court to see whether the inferior courts and tribunals have acted within parameters and not to correct the errors apparent on the face of record much less an error of law (Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Company Limited AIR 2003 SC 1561). 6. The remedy under Article 227 would have been available to the petitioner if the petitioner was not left with any other remedy under law and the order which the petitioner suffered at the hands of tribunal, subordinate to the High Court was without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction. But in all those cases where an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, either by way of an appeal or some such other remedy, the High Court ought not to interfere into the matter. 7. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Anr. But in all those cases where an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, either by way of an appeal or some such other remedy, the High Court ought not to interfere into the matter. 7. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 3208 had occasion to consider the applicability of Article 226 and 227 in case of Debt Recovery Tribunal and observed as follows: ‘6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under S.20 and this fast track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless when there is an alternative remedy available juridical prudence demands that the Court refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provision. This was a case where the High court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.’ 8. Aperusal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would show that this Act has provided inbuilt mechanism of appeals and revisions and a person who suffers an order at the hands of State Commission is not without remedy. Section 21 of the said Act reads as under: ‘21. Aperusal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would show that this Act has provided inbuilt mechanism of appeals and revisions and a person who suffers an order at the hands of State Commission is not without remedy. Section 21 of the said Act reads as under: ‘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 condensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees 1[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 exercised 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’. 9. It is apparent that the Consumer Protection Act has provided an inbuilt mechanism for redressal of grievances of the parties at three levels; one at the consumer forum, second at State Commission level and the third at National Commission level. The National Commission has been given powers to call for the records of the State Commission and if it comes to a conclusion that the State Commission has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or has acted with material irregularity, the same can be rectified by the National Commission. The powers vested in the National Commission are rather vast in nature than the powers to be exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I consider that when an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, the petitioner’s approaching this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not justified. 10. There is no doubt that this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all tribunals subordinate to it but it must be kept in mind that these supervisory powers should not be exercised in a manner so as to render the legislative measures as infructuous. 10. There is no doubt that this Court has supervisory jurisdiction over all tribunals subordinate to it but it must be kept in mind that these supervisory powers should not be exercised in a manner so as to render the legislative measures as infructuous. The legislature had intended that the disputes regarding consumers must be settled by separate forum of tribunals and a three-tier consumer redressal mechanism has been provided by the legislature in the form of District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Enough powers have been given to the State Commissions and National Commissions under the Act to see that the principles of natural justice are followed in its true spirit and nobody goes unheard and the tribunals subordinate to National Commission act within their jurisdiction. Once a specialized body and tribunals have been provided, it is not fit for the High Court to assume jurisdiction even where an alternative remedy is provided by the legislature and burden itself with the work of other tribunals as well. The whole purpose of creation of Tribunals stand defeated if the High Court usurps jurisdiction of other tribunals while exercising powers under Article 227. 11. In view of the above discussion, these petitions deserve dismissal and are hereby dismissed as such. No orders as to costs.