Arun S/O Ramkrishna Pawade vs Sharman Paints, Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

Arun S/O Ramkrishna Pawade vs Sharman Paints, Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner demonstrated any perversity in the impugned order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing Revision Petition No.703/2016, so as to warrant indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

There are several disputed questions of fact which could not have been gone into by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the State Commission and the National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission.

Ratio / Principle

The complaint was filed about a year after the pipes were purchased and the request for sending the pipes to the Quality Control Officer for testing was submitted about three years after filing the complaint; consequently, the petitioner's grievance on that count was not entertained, defeating the Rule 5-based claim.

Key takeaways

The petitioner failed to demonstrate any perversity with the impugned order; accordingly, no indulgence was warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consumer law / judicial review under Article 227 — Writ Petition dismissed. Petitioner's challenge to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order dated 25.01.2024 dismissing Revision Petition No.703/2016 (claim of Rs. Ten lakhs for 350 allegedly defective pipes bought from Sharman Paints) failed. Counsel argued that Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Consumers Protection Rules, 1987 obliged the District Forum to send the goods for chemical analysis within 45 days. The Court held that the complaint was filed about a year after purchase and the testing request came about three years after the complaint, so that grievance was not entertained; several disputed questions of fact could not be gone into by the District Forum, State Commission or NCDRC; and no perversity in the impugned order was demonstrated. No indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; writ petition dismissed without costs.

wp885.25.odt 1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.885 OF 2025

Arun s/o Ramkrishna Pawde ... Petitioner Versus Sharman Paints.thr. its Proprietor Mrs. Taradevi Sharma ... Respondent ….

Mr.Amit A. Choube, Advocate for petitioner.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2025.

FINAL ORDER :

1 Heard Mr. Amit A. Choube, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by which the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had raised a grievance before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, with respect to defective pipes supplied by the respondent. In his complaint, which was filed in April 2023,

wp885.25.odt 2/3

the petitioner alleged that 350 pipes were purchased by him from the respondent and in February 2004 it was revealed that the pipes were of inferior quality. Therefore, by issuing notice dated 26^th April, 2004, the petitioner demanded compensation of Rupees Ten lakhs from the respondent, and filed a complaint before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum at Nagpur. The complaint filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed against which, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was also dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.703/2016 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. By judgment and order dated 25^th January, 2024, the Revision Petition came to be dismissed and the petitioner has challenged this order by way of instant petition.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in view of the complaint raised by the petitioner, it was incumbent on the part of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to send the goods for chemical analysis as per Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Consumers Protection Rules, 1987, within 45 days from the date of filing of the complaint and on account of non-compliance with this provision, the petitioner was entitled for the relief claimed.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the

wp885.25.odt 3/3

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as well as the orders passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum and State Commission reveal that the petitioner has filed the complaint after about a year after the pipes were purchased and the request for sending the pipes to Quality Control Officer for testing was submitted by the petitioner after three years after filing the complaint. As such, the grievance raised by the petitioner in that regard was not entertained. A perusal of the impugned order also reveals that there are several disputed questions of fact, which could not have been gone into by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, State Commission and National Consumers Dispute Redressal Commission.

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any perversity with the impugned order. No indulgence is, therefore, warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order

as to costs.

( PRAFULLA S.KHUBALKAR, J. )

Mukund Ambulkar, SPS

Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 22/08/2025 20:33:00