Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 826 (KER)

Karamana Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Sujatha

2017-05-31

SHAJI P.CHALY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which advanced a loan to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent paid off the loan and demanded back the share amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Petitioner did not return the share amount and hence respondent claimed return of share amount with compensation before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, however, suffered with Ext.P3 order. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.580 of 2010 and secured Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the petitioner was directed to return the share amount. It is thus challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Commission, this writ petition is filed. 2. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record and heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The question emerges for consideration in this writ petition is, in view of the provisions contained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 any interference can be made by this Court invoking the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal, especially when there is a clear provision of appeal to the National Commission, if aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission. It is clear from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act'] that it is a self-contained statute promulgated with the intention of speedy, inexpensive and efficacious remedy to the litigants in that branch of law. The primary forum is District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to which a financial jurisdiction is provided under the statute. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Forum is entitled to prefer an appeal to the State Commission. However, the State Commission as well as the National Commission are provided with original jurisdiction with certain financial stipulations. So also, any person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission, is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Act to the National Commission. Therefore, the statute provides clear and equally efficacious remedy for a litigant to prefer an appeal to the National Commission, aggrieved by an order of the State Commission. 4. So also, any person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission, is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 of the Act to the National Commission. Therefore, the statute provides clear and equally efficacious remedy for a litigant to prefer an appeal to the National Commission, aggrieved by an order of the State Commission. 4. Going through the facts and circumstances in the case at hand and the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission, I am of the considered opinion, there are no exceptional circumstances justifying interference in the order passed by the State Commission, invoking the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true, under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances this Court will be justified in interfering with the orders of the District Forum or the State Commission. However, under normal and ordinary circumstances, when there is an efficacious remedy available to an aggrieved person, this Court will be loathe in interfering with such orders. 5. To put it more precise, Section 17 of the Act, 1986 confers jurisdiction on the State Commission to entertain an appeal from the District Forum. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the said provision empowers the State Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. 6. So also, clause (b) of Section 21 enables the National Commission 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. 7. 7. A close reading of the aforesaid provisions make it significant, and are clear indicative factors to understand that, even if the Forum or State Commission is exercising the jurisdiction without authority, the appropriate appellate authorities are vested with sufficient power to consider the manner in which the jurisdiction is exercised by such authorities, and if acted exceeding its jurisdiction, there is every power vested to interfere with the proceedings. That apart, a compendious reading of the provisions of the Act, makes it clear, that the Act is a self-contained statute having its own mechanism to decide the disputes filed before the authorities thereunder. 8. The issue was considered by the apex court in 'Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Assn. of India & Others' [2011 (13) SCALE 584] elaborately after making a detailed survey of its earlier decisions, and laid down the law that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a self-contained statute, and any person aggrieved by the orders passed by the authorities thereunder, the procedure streamlined thereunder has to be followed. The apex court had also considered the manner in which discretionary remedy is to be exercised vis-a-vis, a statutory provision, and also held that unless and until there are exceptional circumstances, no interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is only apposite to quote paragraph 24 of the afore-quoted judgment which read thus: "24. What has surprised us is that the High Court has not even referred to Sections 17 and 19 of the 1986 Act and the law laid down in various judgments of this Court and yet it has declared that the directions given by the State Commission are without jurisdiction and that too by overlooking the availability of statutory remedy of appeal to the respondents". On a reading of the said paragraph, it is clear that, even if an order is passed without sufficient jurisdiction, when there is an appeal provided, that illegality can be remedied by proceeding under the provisions of the statute itself. 9. On a reading of the said paragraph, it is clear that, even if an order is passed without sufficient jurisdiction, when there is an appeal provided, that illegality can be remedied by proceeding under the provisions of the statute itself. 9. Therefore, upshot of the above discussion is, writ petition fails, however, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the National Commission, if advised so, and I have no reason to think that the National Commission will not take into account the pendency of this writ petition before this Court to entertain any application to condone the delay in approaching the said authority. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.