[BY SMT.POORNIMA H.S. ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI.RAJESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 20/01/2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 07/06/2019 AND 20/06/2019 IN
C.C.NO.112/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, (B) GRANT ANY
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION INTERIM PRAYER IN VIEW OF
THE GROUNDS NARRATED SUPRA IN THIS PETITION, THE
PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THIS HON'BLE
COURT BE PLEASED TO ISSUE AN AD INTERIM ORDER BY
STAYING THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.112/2018
ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER' THIS DAY, JAYANT
BANERJI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.1; no one appears for
respondent No.2.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:
a) "Set aside the order dated: 20.01.2021 passed by
the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore and
consequently set aside the order dated:
07.06.2019 and 20.06.2019 in C.C.No.112/2018
vide Annexure-E.
b) Grant any other order or direction under the
circumstances of the case that this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the complainant/respondent No.1 filed a
complaint bearing no.112/2018 under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 19861, before the State
Commission. By an order dated 21.03.2018, the State
Commission issued notices to the opposite parties fixing
06.07.2018. On 06.07.2018, the advocates appearing for the
petitioner as well as respondent No.2 herein appeared on
08.08.2018 was the next date fixed for filing their version.
Act
4. On 08.08.2018, the Advocate of the opposite
party No.1 filed his version. For filing version of opposite
party No.2/petitioner, the Commission fixed the date of
14.08.2018.
5. On 14.08.2018, the Advocate for the petitioner/OP
No.2 filed an IA under Section 151 of CPC seeking
permission to file his version. With that IA, the petitioner
also filed the version of OP No.2 and list of documents. For
the purpose of filing objections to the IA by the complainant,
05.10.2018 was the date fixed.
6. On 05.10.2018, the Advocate for the complainant
filed objections to the IA filed by the petitioner/OP No.2.
7. On 07.06.2019, the following order was passed:
"Advocate for complainant and Opposite Party
No.1 present. None appears for Opposite Party
No.2. Opposite Party No.2 has not filed their version
inspite of completion of 45 days. Therefore, the
application filed by him seeking permission to file
version is rejected. Neither advocate for Opposite
Party No.2 nor Opposite Party No.2 present before
the Commission. They have not filed any objections
to the injunction application filed on behalf of the
complainant.
When called out for the second time, advocate
for complainant present, but, the Opposite Party
No.2 did not turn up so far-To hear on IA's by
20.06.2019."
8. On 20.06.2019, the District Commission, inter alia,
again recorded that the petitioner/OP No.2 filed an
application seeking permission to file version. In spite of
lapse of 45 days, the opposite party has not come forward to
file their version and hence, the application filed by the
opposite party is required to be dismissed in view of a
decision narrated therein.
9. However, on 28.01.2020, the following order is
passed:-
"Adv. for complainant present. Now it is
noticed that the complainant has filed his affidavit
evidence with documents. The version of OP-2
because of delay came to be rejected. For affidavit
evidence of OPs by 3/4/2020."
10. It is therefore, evident from the order of
28.01.2020 as well as from the order of 14.08.2018 that,
along with IA filed by the petitioner/OP No.2 seeking
permission to file version, it had also filed its version and list
of documents. However, it appears that, without
consideration of the same, the order 07.06.2019 was passed.
Again another order of 20.06.2019 was passed. On
28.01.2020, it was noted that the version of the
petitioner/OP No.2 came to be rejected because of delay.
11. Thereafter, on 20.01.2021, the Advocate for the
opposite party No.2 filed an application to recall the order
dated 07.06.2019 and 20.06.2019 and submitted that, an IA
along with version and list with documents were filed on
14.08.2019 itself. The order of 20.01.2021 is quoted
below:-
"Advocate for Opposite Party filed an
application U/s 151 of CPC R/w Section 17 & 18 of
C.P. Act to recall the order dated: 07/06/2019 and
20/06/2019 and submits that they have filed an IA
along with version and list with documents on
14/08/2019 itself only. We are not accepting the
arguments submitted by the advocate for Opposite
Party No.2 as because the I.A. filed U/s 151 of CPC
for permission to file the version itself was rejected
on 07.06.2019 and 20.06.2019. Hence, the version
cannot be taken on record even though they have
filed the version along with list with documents.
Hence, the application filed by Opposite Party No.2 is
hereby rejected. For arguments by 26.03.2020."
12. Though we have noticed the aforesaid facts,
however, we find from the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Cicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle Factory2 cited by the
learned counsel for the respondent that it is not appropriate
for the High Courts to entertain the writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders
passed by the Commission as a statutory appeal is provided
under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Moreover, in the decision of Ibrat Faizan Vs. Omaxe
Buildhome Private Limited3, it was held that the
jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227
against the order passed in an appeal filed before the
National Commission, was correct.
13. In the instant petition, the aforesaid proceedings
before the State Commission were not in an appeal against
the order of the District Forum. Actually, the complaint was
filed directly before the State Commission under sub-clause
(i) of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act.
(2012) 8 SCC 524
AIR 2022 SC 2363
Thus, an appeal would lie against order of the State
Commission before the National Commission under Section
19 of the Act.
14. In view of the aforesaid, we decline to entertain
this petition and it is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
KGR
