M/s Starla Finance And Hire Purchase Ltd vs Ajith Kumar

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“i. To quash Exhibit P1 complaint and further proceedings C.C. No. 175/2022 pending on the files of the 2nd respondent;

ii. Alternatively, to call for the records setting the petitioner ex parte in C.C. No. 175/2022 pending on the files of the 2nd respondent and to quash the same;

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to accept Exhibit P4 affidavit as the version of the petitioner herein in C.C. No. 175/2022 and to permit the petitioner to participate in all further proceedings in C.C. No. 175/2022 pending on the files of the 2nd respondent;

iv. To dispense with the English Translation of vernacular documents;

v. Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the court may deem fit to grant and

vi. Grant the cost of the writ petition.” (Sic)

The main prayer is to quash Ext.P1 complaint and further proceedings in CC No.175 of 2022 pending before the 2nd respondent, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad. The 2nd prayer is to call for the records setting the petitioner ex parte in CC No.175 of 2022 pending on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same. I am of the considered opinion that these prayers need not be entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Consumer Protection Act is a complete Code in which, there are provisions by which the petitioner can challenge the impugned orders in this case. If the complaint itself is not maintainable, the petitioner is free to file an application before the 2nd respondent to decide the maintainability of the application. This Court need not interdict the orders passed by the 2nd respondent or interfer with the complaint pending before the 2nd respondent. This point is considered by this Court in Controller of Examination, Kannur and another v. Sreya N. [2021 (5) KHC 537]. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“5. Even though the Apex Court observed that in certain contingencies, this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can use its discretion either to entertain such writ petition or to reject it. Specific averments are necessary in the writ petition for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal when an appealable order is challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Simply stating that the authority who passed the order has no jurisdiction alone is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the constitution, especially when the appellate authority also can consider the question of jurisdiction. This court need not entertain writ petitions to interfere with orders passed by authorities without jurisdiction in all situations when a statutory remedy is available. This court can use discretion while entertaining such writ petitions considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

Here is a case, where Ext.P5 is admittedly an appealable order. When there is a statutory remedy against Ext.P5 order as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Court need not entertain a writ petition unless there are compelling reasons. The petitioners are the University and its authorities. They can approach the State Commission, instead of filing a writ petition before this Court under Art 226 of the constitution of India. I think there is a camp sitting of the State Commission in some of the centres in Kerala and the principal sitting is at Thiruvananthapuram. Nothing is mentioned in the writ petition which prevents the writ petitioners to move an appeal against Ext.P5 order before the State Commission except the contention that CDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain Ext P1 complaint. Sec.41 of the Act, 2019 deals with appeal against the order of the District Commission. The same is extracted hereunder :

"41. Appeal against order of District Commission - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five 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 forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:

Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80."

In the light of the above dictum, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.