Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1843 (HP)

O. P. Thakur v. Shimla Municipal Corporation

2016-09-01

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. By the medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of order, dated 8th March, 2016 (Annexure P1) made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla (H.P.) (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No. 279 of 2013, titled as O.P. Thakur versus The Shimla Municipal Corporation and another, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned order”). 2. It is a moot question – whether the writ petition is maintainable? 3. The writ petition, on the face of it, is not maintainable for the following reasons: 4. The petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The respondents appeared, resisted the complaint and order was made by the District Forum, which is subject matter of the writ petition in hand. 5. It is apt to record herein that The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) contains the mechanism how to deal with the complaints. Section 15 of the Act provides appeal against the orders of District Forum passed in terms of Section 14 of the Act. 6. The words 'an order' have been used in Section 15 of the Act. Meaning thereby, any order passed by the District Forum is appealable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “State Commission”). Thus, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy available in terms of Section 15 of the Act, which he has not availed so far, but, has chosen to come to this Court perhaps on the ground that the District Forum has not followed the mechanism contained in the Act and has committed procedural irregularities. All these questions are to be gone into by the Appellate Authority, i.e. the State Commission, and not by the Writ Court. 7. In view of the above, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by providing that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 15 of the Act. 8. At this stage, it is stated that limitation will come in the way of the petitioner in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, we deem it proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 8. At this stage, it is stated that limitation will come in the way of the petitioner in filing the appeal. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, we deem it proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is at liberty to file the appeal within two weeks. 9. Mr. Hamender Chandel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, stated at the Bar that respondent Corporation will appear before the Appellate Authority. His statement is taken on record. 10. The petitioner to furnish copy of the appeal alongwith all documents to the respondents enabling them to appear on the date of presentation of the appeal. 11. The State Commission is requested that in case appeal is filed, the same be decided as early as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date the respondents cause appearance. 12. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications.