Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 150 (JHR)

Satyendra Kumar Choudhary v. A One Company

2015-02-03

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2014 in Complaint Case No. 245 of 2012, the petitioner-Rajendra Institute of Medical Science(RIMS), has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Complaint Case No. 245 of 2012 was filed alleging deficiency in service in not supplying the waste articles purchased by the respondents in auction sale. For payment of principal amount of Rs. 12,86,786/and the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/by way of compensation the complaint petition has been filed. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.08.2014, the complaint petition was allowed directing the opposite party-Rajendra Institute of Medical Science(RIMS) to pay the price for undelivered waste articles along with interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from 05.06.2002 till recovery. A further direction was issued for complying with order dated 4.08.2014 within 60 days, failing which a penal interest of 12 % has been imposed till the delivery. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of Complaint Case No. 245 of 2012 would indicate that it was not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further submitted that completely ignoring the mandate as contained in Sections 13 & 14, the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 has been passed which cannot sustain scrutiny in law. The learned counsel, seriously challenging the jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, submitted that on a bare perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint Case No. 245 of 2012 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Seriously refuting the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of provision under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the proceeding of the Complaint Case No 245 of 2012 however, subsequently, it absented in the proceeding and it failed to file its reply and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 by filing the writ petition before this Court. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared in the proceeding of the Complaint Case No 245 of 2012 however, subsequently, it absented in the proceeding and it failed to file its reply and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 by filing the writ petition before this Court. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Referring to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 is without jurisdiction, I find that the petitioner appeared in the proceeding before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 04.01.2013 and several opportunities were granted to the petitioner in the said proceeding however, it failed to file its written statement and thus, the case proceeded exparte. It further appears that on 19.07.2014, the complaint petition was amended and therefore, notice was issued to the opposite party/petitioner however, the petitioner still did not appear in the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 245 of 2012. Since, the petitioner has failed to file its written statement, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete Code in itself. Remedy of appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an efficacious remedy to the petitioner. The grounds which have been raised in the present proceeding can be raised by filing appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi can decide those issues effectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the impugned order dated 14.08.2014 was required to be challenged under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 within a period of 30 days and therefore, there would be a question of limitation. The apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unfounded. The petitioner has pursued its remedy by filing the writ petition in this Court. Moreover, the length of delay is immaterial and the delay in filing the appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be sole ground for rejecting the statutory appeal, if any, preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has pursued its remedy by filing the writ petition in this Court. Moreover, the length of delay is immaterial and the delay in filing the appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot be sole ground for rejecting the statutory appeal, if any, preferred by the petitioner. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others”, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337, I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction by entertaining this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is held not maintainable and a liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi within a period of four weeks and if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the same shall be decided on its merit. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Petition disposed of.