Allowed

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, v. The A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission

Telangana HC23 Apr 2012WP/4294/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition by M/s.B.N.Rathi Securities Limited challenging an order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The order was quashed and remanded because the Commission proceeded under the mistaken impression that the petitioner was represented by a counsel who never filed a vakalat or received notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 16.11.2011 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the State Commission for fresh disposal.

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, Vs The A.P. State… — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4294 of 2012

¶3

Dated:23.04.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s.B.N.Rathi Securities Limited.

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The A.P.State Consumer Redressal Commission, Kirathabad, Hyderabad, And another.

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.4294 of 2012

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner assails the order dated 16.11.2011 in F.A.No.1207 of 2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the State Commission) whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the second respondent herein (the complainant) against the order dated 30.06.2009 in C.D.No.186 of 2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar, was allowed, and the petitioner herein (the opposite party) was directed to pay Rs.1,87,441/- with interest at 9% per annum.

¶14

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), creates hierarchy

¶15

of Fora at the District, State and National levels. The appellate/revisional authorities in hierarchy are also stipulated. It is now axiomatic that when an effective and efficacious remedy is created by the Act, a writ petition ordinarily would not lie (Om Prakash Saini v [1] DCM Ltd . ) . Going by this dicta, the case might have been dismissed in limine. But, the petitioner raised an important question. He would submit the State Commission proceeded as if his Counsel, Sri R.S.Reddy, filed vakalat for him, but actually and factually, he did not receive any notice nor he engaged any Counsel, by name, Sri R.S.Reddy. In view of this, we thought it fit to conduct a preliminary enquiry and requested the State Commission to send their comments. In response to the request, they have sent us the report dated 22.03.2012. It appears, the petitioner did not engage any Counsel and the concerned Court Master inadvertently endorsed that Sri R.S.Reddy filed vakalat for the petitioner herein. The report of the State Commission is made part of the record. As the impugned order came to be passed under a mistaken impression, we are inclined to set aside the same and remand the matter to the State Commission.

¶16

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs, and the matter shall stand remitted to the State Commission for fresh disposal. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶17

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶18

________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶19

23.04.2012 vs

¶20

[1] (2010) 11 SCC 622

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, v. The A.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. B.N. Rathi Securities Limited, v. The A.P. State Consumer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao Vs The Tenali Municipality

M. Gangadharam Vs The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn. and Nh)

M/s. Anupama Educational Society Vs The Debts Recovery Tribunal

Sri Venkateshwara Educational Society Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Zuari Industries Ltd., Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

Shamshad Begum Vs State of Andhra Pradesh