Karnataka High Court
Mysore Mercantile Company Ltd vs The Managing Director on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
W.P. No.22/2021 (GM CON)
BETWEEN:
1. MYSORE MERCANTILE COMPANY LTD.,
(BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. RAKESH SHETTY)
201 AND 202, "SRESHTA BUMI",
NO.87, K R ROAD,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU-560004.
2. H. S. SHETTY,
S/O RAJEEVA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
571, 21ST MAIN,
4TH T BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560041.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DASTAGIR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMEER, ADVOCATE)
(APPEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
AND:
2
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA (P) LTD.,
PLOT NO.H-1, SIPCOT INDUSTRIAL PARK,
IRRUNGATTUKOTAI-602117,
SRIPERAMBUDUR TALUK,
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, (TN).
2. GENERAL MANAGER(SALES),
M/S BLUE HYUNDAI,
(UNIT OF SAPHIRE MOTORS PVT LTD),
#108, 13TH KM, MYSORE ROAD,
NEAR RV ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
BENGALURU-560059.
3. THE DIRECTOR,
THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION
OF INDIA,
SURVEY NO.102, VETAL HILL,
OFF PAUD ROAD,
KOTHRUD,
PUNE-411038.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
(SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(SRI J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 V/C)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 PASSED BY THE BENGALURU
RURAL AND URBAN 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM IN CONSUMER CASE NO.109/2018,
PRODUCED HEREIN AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND
ETC.,
3
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the
validity of the order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the
Karnataka State Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the 'State Commission') as well as the order
dated 23.01.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the 'District
Forum' for short).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a
preliminary objection that an alternative and efficacious
remedy is available to the petitioners to assail the impugned
orders.
3. In view of the aforesaid submission, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal under
Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) does not lie as
Section 21(a)(ii) has to be read along with Section 19 of the
Act.
4. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. Section 19 of the Act
provides for an appeal to the National Commission, whereas,
Section 21 deals with jurisdiction of the National
Commission. The relevant extract of Sections 19 & 21 of the
Act is quoted below for the facility of reference:
19. Appeals.--Any person aggrieved by
an order made by the State Commission in
exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause
(i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an
appeal against such order to the National
Commission within a period of thirty days from
the date of the order in such form and manner
as may be prescribed:
21. Jurisdiction of the National
Commission.--Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, the National Commission shall have
jurisdiction--
(a) to entertain--
(i) complaints where the value of the
goods or services and compensation, if any,
claimed exceeds 1[rupees one crore]; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any
State Commission;
Thus, from conjoint reading of Section 19 as well as
Section 21 (a)(ii) of the Act, it is evident that an appeal lies
against the order of State Commission to the National
Commission. Admittedly, the order has been passed by the
District Forum and therefore, the same is covered by Section
17(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, Section 19 of the Act also
does not prohibit the filling of an appeal in the facts and
circumstances of the case. Therefore, we reject the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In
view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious
remedy to the petitioners, we are not inclined to exercise
extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India especially when the petitioners are
at liberty to take recourse to the remedy of an appeal.
Needless to state that if such a petition is filed, the petitioner
shall be entitled to the benefit contained under Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
