A Anitha Reddy Vs Sri. Vikram M

A ANITHA REDDY WIFE OF U YESHVARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, LAKE SHORE HOMES, KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 35 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER U YESHWARDHAN REDDY

¶11

Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶12

M. PALLAVI REDDY WIFE OF RAJENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 406, TULIP BLOCK, REDWOOD APARTMENTS, HARALUR ROAD, OPP SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 102

¶13

SUMA B.N WIFE OF R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 162, CKB LAYOUT, BEHIND DENTAL COLLEGE, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BANGALORE- 560 037

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. AJAY SHANKAR RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI. VIKARAM M S/O P MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.49. SATHVAMURTHY ROAD. RK MOTORS, RAMASWAMY PALYA, MAMITHI SEVATIAGEL BANGALORE 560033

¶21

M/S VIVANSAA BAALSAM, PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE, AT NO.88, 1^ST FLOOR, 17^TH CROSS, 14^TH MAIN, IV SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SWAPNIL AGRAWAL.

¶22

M/S YES BANK LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT BUILDING, NO.27, HAL 3^RD STAGE, 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560075. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE STATE COMMISSIONER DATED 29.08.2025 IN SC/29/FA/841/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

The present petition under Article 227 of the

¶33

Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.SC/29/FA/841/2025 preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 30.06.2025 in Consumer Case No.225 and 2022 instituted by the respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru. The District Commission in its order dated 30.06.2025 at Annexure-E, has allowed the complaint of the respondents in part and held the petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.24,49,660/- along with the accrued interest. The petitioners have also been directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was paid by the complainant

¶34

along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and further, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as compensation towards

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

suffering for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering along with Rs.10,000/towards the cost of the proceedings.

¶38

Aggrieved by the said order of the District

¶39

Commission dated 30.06.2055, the petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide interim order dated 29.08.2025 observed that unless statutory deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the District Commission was not paid, the question of considering the application for stay would not arise and therefore, the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the amount as awarded by the District Commission by 10.11.2025.

¶40

Instead of depositing the said sum, the

¶41

petitioners have filed this petition.

¶42

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is complete code in itself. It provides remedy for filing a complaint, appeal, revision, etc., against an order passed by the State Commission on

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

appeal, Section 58(1)(b) of the Act prescribes the statutory remedy of filing the revision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the State Commission, they should have filed a revision as provided under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, instead of filing a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy to the petitioners under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, however, without costs.

¶46

If the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount awarded by the District Commission vide order dated 30.06.2025 by 20.11.2025, the State Commission should consider the application filed by the petitioners for interim protection.

¶47

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶48

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶49

DH

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

A Anitha Reddy v. Sri. Vikram M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Anitha Reddy v. Sri. Vikram M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagappa Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Mr. Sridhara

Lingaraju K @ Raju K Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs Pairee Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Javed Khan. R, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Suresh Kumar Ramsisaria Vs Smt. Indira