Dismissed

Sri B H Ramachandra v. the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2020WP/9134/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected High Court dismissed writ petition challenging State Consumer Commission order, holding alternative remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to National Commission was available and efficacious, rendering writ not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Dismissing writ petition as not maintainable in view of alternative remedy of appeal to National Commission.

Sri B H Ramachandra Vs the Karnataka State Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.9134 OF 2020 (GM-CON)

¶9

BETWEEN :

¶10

SRI. B.H. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, S/O LATE S.P. HANUMANTHARAYA SHETTY, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.70/1, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶11

SRI. B.H. SRINIVASMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE S.P. HANUMANTHARAYA SHETTY, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.70/1, GOVINDAPPA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶12

SRI. USHA HARISH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O SRI T.S. HARISH, D/O LATE S.P. HANUMANTHARAYA SHETTY, RESIDING AT VAISHNAVI JEWELLERS, SHIVARAMPETH, MYSURU – 570 001. …PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SHRI. SREEDHAR N.G, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BASAVA BHAVAN, NEAR SRI. BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶17

SMT. SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O SRI.S.SRIPATHI RAO, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO – 147, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, M – BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGAR, MYSURU - 570 023.

¶18

M/S PATHAK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NO. 2997/2, RUKMA COMPLEX, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

¶19

SRI. JAYARAM PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.M. PATHAK, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S PATHAK DEVELOPERS, C/O RUKMA COMPLEX, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 002.

¶20

SRI. SRIHARI PATHAK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.M. PATHAK, DIRECTOR,

¶21

¶22

M/S PATHAK DEVELOPERS, C/O RUKMA COMPLEX, KALIDASA ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 002. …RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA FOR R1)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2018 (ANNEXURE–D) IN COMPLAINT NO. 617/2015 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BENGALURU (R-1 HEREIN) AS ILLEGAL UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WRIT OR DIRECTION SO AS TO QUASH THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS IN E.P.NO.51/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE–G SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS AS ILLEGAL UNJUST AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ETC.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners have challenged order dated 31.07.2018 passed in Complaint No.617/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’ for short) at Bengaluru (Annexure-D) under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,

¶28

¶29

Under Section 19 of the said Act any person aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under sub-clause (1) of clause (a) of Section 17 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission. Thus, the said Act provides for an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal to the National Commission.

¶30

Instead of availing the said remedy, the petitioners have filed the writ petition assailing judgment of the State Commission referred to above

¶31

by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

¶32

In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners to approach the National Commission, we do not think that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India can entertain the writ petition.

¶33

¶34

Moreover jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 19 of the Act is an appellate jurisdiction which is wider than exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

¶35

Therefore, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative appellate remedy, if so advised.

¶36

Registry to return certified copy of the impugned judgment to petitioners’ counsel forthwith, subject to the filing a copy of the said judgment for the purpose of record.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

BVK

Sri B H Ramachandra v. the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B H Ramachandra v. the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramappa Hatti Vs Union of Inida

Hanumantha Raju L Vs Narayana Shetty

Sri G Srinivasa Gowda Vs Sri B H Anil Kumar

Sharan Desai Vs the Ministry of Human Resource Development

Sudarshan B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Shiva Kumar Gowda on Behalf of Vs the Chairman