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
4 paragraphs · 218 words@DELETEUPPERDATA
Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Smt. Shyama Rani, petitioner, in person and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, Advocate, for respondents. Against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter after referred to as "Act, 1986"), a statutory remedy of appeal is available before Apex Court under Section 23 of Act, 1986. It appears that instead of preferring the statutory appeal, petitioner preferred S.L.P. before Apex Court and that was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to avail such remedy as available in law. In law, remedy of statutory appeal is provided under Section 23 of Act, 1986 and, therefore, petitioner must avail the same.
Moreover, Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory, , with reference to the orders passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has said: "...High Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter against the order of the Commission.? it is not appropriate for the High Courts to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the Commission, as a statutory appeal is provided and lies to this Court under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986."
In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy.