Dismissed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Telangana HC28 Mar 2012WP/13869/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a bank challenging an order dismissing an application for condonation of delay. Relying on Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Supreme Court decision in Om Prakash Saini, the Court held that the statutory appeal mechanism is an effective alternative remedy, barring writ jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of dismissing th

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty given to avail alternative remedy; miscellaneous petitions disposed of; no order as to costs.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Vs A.P. State Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.13869 OF 2011

¶4

March 28, 2012

¶5

Between:

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Somajiguda, Hyderabad Represented by its Authorised Signatory, B.Srinivasa Aditya Dutt

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad represented by its Registrar And others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.13869 OF 2011

¶13

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶14

The petitioner is a private bank. They lent certain amounts to the third respondent for purchasing a goods vehicle. Alleging that though he liquidated the entire loan amount, the petitioner herein failed to release hypothecation by issuing necessary certificate of cancellation. The third respondent approached the District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad. His case being C.C. No.653 of 2009 was allowed ex parte on 07.9.2010. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the State Commission) in F.A. S.R. No.2211 of 2011. The petitioner also filed an application being F.A.I.A. No.865 of 2011 for condoning delay of 151 days in preferring the appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act). The application was dismissed by the State Commission on 27.4.2011, aggrieved by which the present writ petition is filed.

¶15

At the very outset, the Counsel for the third respondent raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in view of Section 21(b) of the Act. According to him, Section 21(b) of the Act provides alternative and efficacious remedy of revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and, therefore, when the questions of fact involved, writ petition would not lie.

¶16

It is now well settled that in view of the effective alternative remedy provided under the Act, when consumer disputes are brought before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily writ petitions cannot be entertained. I n Om Prakash Saini v

¶17

[1] DCM Lt d the Supreme Court considered this aspect and held as follows.

¶18

The 1986 Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers by making provisions for establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and adjudication thereof. The 1986 Act is a complete Code unto itself. It defines the various terms like consumer', consumer dispute', defect', deficiency', goods', manufacturer', restrictive trade practice', service', `unfair trade practice'. It provides for establishment of consumer councils and adjudicatory forums at the District, State and National levels. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the District Forum can file an appeal before the State Commission. If he is not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, a further remedy is available by way of revision before the National Commission. If the complaint is decided by the State Commission, the aggrieved person can file an appeal before the National Commission. Elaborate procedure has been laid down for filing of the complaints and disposal thereof. Since the 1986 Act is a special statute enacted by the Parliament for better protection of the interest of consumers and a wholesome mechanism has been put in place for adjudication of consumer disputes, the remedy of appeal available to a person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission cannot but be treated as an effective alternative remedy.

¶19

In view of the binding precedent, we cannot entertain the writ petition. We give liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy. The writ petition, subject to above observations, is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶21

March 28, 2012 YS

¶22

[1] (2010) 11 SCC 622 : AIR 2010 SC 2608

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, v. A.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., rep.by Tahsildar, Vs M/s.Sree Panchamurty Co-op House Building Society Ltd.

Buchipudi Naveen Kumar Reddy Vs The State Bank of Hyderabad

Syed Sakeena Begum Vs The Authorized Officer

M/s. Lalwani Agricultural and Dairy Farm, rep. by is Vs Akash Enclave Residents Welfare Association, rep. by its

M/s.Anantha Madhava Read Estates and constructions, Vs K.v.Surya Rao

M/s. Midhuna Chit Funds Ltd., Vs The Registrar