Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 658 (CAL)

Puspajit Mondal v. LAP Authomobiles

2013-09-09

ASIM KUMAR RAY

body2013
JUDGMENT : Asim Kumar Ray, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated 20th March, 2009 passed in S.C. (State Commission) Case No. F.A./08/321 by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal thereby confirming the order passed in C.D.F. (Consumer Dispute Forum) Case No. 174 of 2005 by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly. 2. The factual background in a nutshell is that the Petitioners purchased a four-wheeler from Lap Automobiles under the finance scheme on higher purchase basis from Indian Lease Development Ltd. through the Lap Automobiles. The Petitioners initially made payment of Rs. 1,15,001/- including registration fee as per instruction of Opposite Party No.1, Lap Automobiles. The rest due amount was to be paid in Thirty equal monthly instalments of Rs. 3,824/-. As security Petitioner No.2 issued Fifteen blank cheques drawn on S.B.I., Tribeni Branch. The Petitioners had paid EMI for more than eight months. On receipt of certain documents in connection with the vehicle, the petitioners came to know that, in fact, Rs. 170/- had been paid as tax and Rs. 920/- was paid towards registration for the vehicle by Lap Automobiles out of total sum of Rs. 1,15,001/-. Being suspicious, the Petitioners asked for detailed statement from Lap Automobiles in respect of the loan status but in vain. They then approached the Financier. On receipt of the statement of accounts from the Opposite Party No.2/Financier, the Petitioners came to learn that Rs. 56,040/- had been paid out of Rs. 1,15,001/- by the Petitioners. Opposite party No.1, Lap Automobiles, thus rendered illegal and unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties had deceived and misdirected the Petitioners in the entire transactions. The Petitioners as such filed C.D.F. Case No. 174 of 2005 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Hooghly. The said Forum passed an order on 9th April, 2008. Challenging the said order, S.C. Case No. F.A./08/321 was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission passed the impugned order dated 20th March, 2009. In this backdrop, this is the revisional application. 3. The learned Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners, has contended that the order passed by the State Commission is very cryptic. The finding of the State Commission is without any reason. It may be interfered with and set aside. 4. The learned Advocate, appearing for the Opposite Parties, has contended that this revisional application is not maintainable. 3. The learned Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners, has contended that the order passed by the State Commission is very cryptic. The finding of the State Commission is without any reason. It may be interfered with and set aside. 4. The learned Advocate, appearing for the Opposite Parties, has contended that this revisional application is not maintainable. He has referred to Section 15 as well as Section 19of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has contended that if an order is passed by the State Commission against a person, the person who is aggrieved by the said order may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a time fixed. The revisional application has been filed by the Petitioners avoiding the said specific provisions. The revisional application is as such not maintainable. He has cited decisions reported in 1995 (1) CLJ 124 , 2005 (2) CHN 554 and 1995 (1) Calcutta Law Times, High Court, 127. 5. I have meticulously perused the revisional application and have gone through Sections 15 and 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I have taken specific note of the submissions of the learned Advocates of the parties. I have perused the decisions placed before me by the learned Advocate of the Opposite Parties. 6. The Petitioners initiated C.D.F. Case No. 174 of 2005 alleging that the Opposite Parties have deceived and misdirected the Petitioners causing loss, injury and sufferance. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum by order No. 33 dated 09.04.2008 dismissed the Petitioners prayer. The Petitioners moved the Upper Forum, i.e., the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal, challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The State Commission by the impugned order, i.e., the order dated 23.03.2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the District Forum. The Petitioners are before the Court challenging the order passed by the State Commission. 7. There is specific provisions regarding appeal in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant provisions are Sections 15 and 19. The State Commission by the impugned order, i.e., the order dated 23.03.2009, dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the District Forum. The Petitioners are before the Court challenging the order passed by the State Commission. 7. There is specific provisions regarding appeal in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant provisions are Sections 15 and 19. Section 15 is quoted below: "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:" 8. The Petitioners taking the provisions laid down in Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission by the impugned order rejected the Petitioners prayer confirming the order passed by the District Forum. 9. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act runs as follows:- "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:" 10. On plain perusal of Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it appears that the Petitioners had the avenue to go to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order passed by the State Commission as they have claimed that they have been aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission. The Petitioners in instead of approaching the National Commission took out this revisional application and placed it before the Court. 11. The Petitioners in instead of approaching the National Commission took out this revisional application and placed it before the Court. 11. Now the question comes in whether this Court will entertain this revisional application when there is specific provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to challenge an order passed by the State Commission. 12. This Court in Biswanath alias Deb Kumar Pathak v. Shymal Kumar Pathak, 1995 (1) Calcutta Law Times, H.C. 127 has observed that "it is clear, therefore, that the Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge the orders of the District Forum. The appellate forum has more powers than a revisional or supervisory forum. In the factual set up of the case there is no special circumstances for invocation of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of our Constitution. In view of the catena of decisions of the apex Court of our country referred to above, where the alternative remedy provided by the Statute is a suitable solution, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of our Constitution is not proper. So the contention of the learned lawyer for the petitioner here is rejected." 13. In the case of Hindustan Law Book Company v. Ganesh Srivastav, reported in 2005 (2) CHN 554 , this Court has held that:- "Besides section 21 of the Act appears to have dealt with the provisions of jurisdiction of the National Commission and Clause (b) deals with the provisions as to what to be done by the National Commission in case of an appeal from the order of the State Commission is admitted. It is clearly mentioned there that the National Commission will interfere in such order of the State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised 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 materially irregularity. But the petitioner instead of approaching the National Commission under section 21 of the Act has preferred this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and thereby has invited the mischief as enunciated by the apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) which has already been quoted in the foregoing lines. Accordingly, this revisional application fails". 14. Accordingly, this revisional application fails". 14. In the case of United Bank of India v. Hirak Mukherjee & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) CLJ 124 :- "The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1977 SC 1703 (K.K. Srivastava & Anr. v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain), AIR 1976 SC 2276 (Miss Maneck Custodji Surajarji v. Sarafazali Nawabali Mirza) and AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another). In the last decision the Supreme Court held that alternative remedy is a suitable solution available on the terms of the Statute itself. The exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition may not be appropriate and proper. Consumer Protection Act is a self-contained code making appropriate provisions for rectification or correction of the grievances which could have been raised in this writ petition before the trial forum or the appellate forum." 15. The case, which we are now dealing with, is exactly fitted with the citations placed before this Court from the side of the opposite parties. Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the jurisdiction of the National Commission. The National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the order of any State Commission. Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 made it abundantly clear that if a person is aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission, he may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. The Statute/Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has specific provision so that the persons, who are aggrieved by an order of the District Commission and also by an order of the State Commission, may go to the superior Forum, i.e. the National Commission. The petitioners admittedly avoided that Forum and took out an application praying for revision of the order passed by the State Commission and presented it before this Court. This Court is of the view that this revisional application is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.