AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 362 wordsC.S.Dias, J
Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed in I.A No.47/2023 in C.C No.313/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (in short ‘Commission’), the opposite parties 1,3,4 and 9 in the complaint have filed the original petition. The respondents are the complainant and the opposite parties 2,5,6,7 & 8 in the complaint.
The relevant facts leading to Ext.P4 order are:
(i) The first respondent has filed Ext.P1 complaint before the Commission, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 6, to realise an amount of Rs.35,70,600/-as compensation.
(ii) The petitioners defence is that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘Act’). Therefore, they filed Ext.P3 application to consider the question of maintainability of the complaint as a preliminary issue. But the Commission, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, has rejected the application and has held that the question is a matter of evidence.
(iii) Ext.P4 is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence the original petition.
Heard; Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on admission.
In Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Protection Act is a self contained Code and the High Courts shall not entertain writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging orders passed under the Act, in view of the alternative statutory remedy available under the Act.
Furthermore, in Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Ltd and others [(2010) 11 SCC 622], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has succinctly held that in view of the alternative remedy available to an aggrieved person under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the High Courts shall not interfere with orders passed under the Act, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the light of the emphatic declaration of law in the aforecited decisions, I am not inclined to entertain the original petition and interfere with Ext.P4 order passed by the Commission.
Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to work out their remedies, in accordance with law, the original petition is dismissed.