Kerala High Court
M. Bhaskaran Nair vs K. Damodaran Nair on 21 March, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:24126
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 M. BHASKARAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O M. KRISHNAN NAIR,
R/AT UKKIRAMPADY,
P.O. THEKKIL FERRY, CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DIST., PIN - 671541
2 E. GOPALAN
AGED 69 YEARS
2.S/O CHANDU NAIR,
R/AT MOODAMBAIL MANHANGAL,
P.O. THEKKIL,
KASARAGOD DIST., PIN - 671541
BY ADV KODOTH SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 K. DAMODARAN NAIR
S/O A. CHANDU NAIR,
R/AT ARATTUKADAVU, BEDADKA VILLAGE,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
2 KUNDAMKUZHI SELF EMPLOYEES FINANCING COMPANY (REG.)
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
3 B.K. KUTTY
S/O KUNHAPPA, KUNHIRATHAMGAL,
BEDADKA, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
4 M. GANGADHARAN NAIR
S/O SHANKARAN NAIR, R/AT SREENILAYAM,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
2025:KER:24126
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 2
5 K. NARAYANAN,
S/O PAKKEERAN MANIYANI,
THOTTIYIL HOUSE,
BEDADKA, P.O.,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
6 P. JAYACHANDRAN
S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, JAYALAKSHMI,
KALAKKARA, KUTTIKOLE,
P.O. CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 670562
7 A.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
S/O LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, CHOTTATHOL HOUSE,
VATTANTHATTA, KASARAGODE, PIN - 671542
8 V. GANGADHARAN NAIR,
8.S/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
MINAMKULAM NHKIYAR, IRIYANNAL,
P.O. KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671542
9 K. MURALIDHARAN NAIR
9.S/O CHANDU NAIR, MALAMKADU,
KUNDAMKUZHI, P.O.CHENGALA,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671541
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:24126
WP(C) NO. 11501 OF 2025 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025
The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Exts.
P2 and P2(a) show cause notices issued against the
petitioners by the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (in short, 'Commission'), Kasaragod, in EA
Nos. 58/2005 and 57/2005.
2. The first respondent had filed O.P. No.168
and 169 of 2004 before the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, for the recovery of the
amount due from the petitioner and other opposite
parties arrayed in the complaint. The petitioners are the
Directors of the second respondent Company. The
petitioners do not hold any property of the second
respondent company and are not personally liable for the
liabilities of the second respondent. The petitioners did
not contest the proceedings and did not enter into any
2025:KER:24126
compromise. The Forum was under the impression that
the Directors of the second respondent are jointly and
severally liable to pay the liability of the second
respondent. Accordingly, on the basis of a compromise
that was entered into between some of the Directors, the
Forum allowed the complaints by Ext. P1(a) common
order, directing the Company and all its Directors to pay
Rs. 75,000/- each with interest at the rate of 15% per
annum from the dates of the complaints till the date of
realisation. Subsequently, the first respondent has filed
E.A. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2005 to execute the common
order. Now, the Commission has issued Exts. P2 and
P2(a) show cause notices to the petitioners to appear on
09.08.2024. In the absence of any personal liability, the
petitioners are not liable to pay any amount. Therefore,
all further proceedings, pursuant to Exts. P2 and P2(a)
are without jurisdiction. Hence, Exts. P2 and P2(a) may
be quashed.
2025:KER:24126
3. Heard; Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on
admission.
4. The materials on record substantiate that O.P.
No. 168/2004 was filed by the first respondent, and O.P.
No. 169/2004 was filed by one Sreejesh A.K, who is not
made a party in the writ petition. Be that as it may, Ext.
P1(a) common order shows that the complaints were
allowed on the basis of a compromise arrived at between
the two complainants, the second respondent and some
of its Directors, whereby some of the Directors agreed to
pay Rs. 75,000/- each to the complainants, failing which
all the opposite parties would be held jointly and
severally liable to pay the above amount with interest.
5. A reading of Ext. P1(a) common order shows
that the petitioners were set ext-parte; yet, the Forum by
the impugned order allowed the complaints on the basis
of the compromise by the complainants and the
2025:KER:24126
contesting opposite parties. Admittedly, the petitioners
have not challenged Ext. P1(a) common order passed two
decades back. Ext. P2 series show cause notices show
that the execution applications are pending since 2005
onwards. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the show
cause notices issued on 09.07.2024, directing them to
appear before the Commission on 09.08.2024. The
petitioners contend that they are not personally liable to
pay the amounts as per the impugned common order.
6. In Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory
[2012 (8) SCC 524], the Honourable Supreme Court has
held that the High Court shall not exercise its plenary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
interfere with orders passed under the Consumer
Protection Act, in view of the alternative statutory
remedy available under the Act.
7. In Regional Cancer Center, Tvm v. Kerala
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
2025:KER:24126
Tvm and Others [2021 (5) KHC 236] a Division Bench
of this Court has held as follows:
"14. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a self contained and
a complete mechanism for redressal of the consumers related
grievances by filing complaint, appeal and revision from the
District Forum up to the Supreme Court subject to limits of
jurisdiction provided therein. When hierarchy of remedies are
provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the
appellant has to avail the remedy under the said Act. Ext.P10
order passed by the State Commission is revisable before the
National commission under S.21(b). The appellant having
contested the claim before the CDRF on merits and subjected
itself to the jurisdiction of the CDRF and further elected the
remedy available to it by challenging the order of the CDRF
before the State Commission by preferring appeal under S.15 of
the Act, cannot switch over to another remedy in midway, even
assuming such remedy by way of a writ petition is available to
the appellant. We find no exceptional or extra ordinary
circumstances warranting interference with the order of the
State Commission invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
Art.226 of the Constitution of India."
8. In the light of the fact that Ext. P1 common order
attained finality two decades back, the petitioners have
not bothered to contest the proceedings on its merits,
the exposition of the law in the above decision and the
alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners,
2025:KER:24126
I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and
exercise the plenary powers of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
In the aforesaid circumstances, I dismiss the writ
petition, by leaving open the right of the petitioners to
work out their statutory remedies, if any available, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
mtk/21.03.25
2025:KER:24126
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11501/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP.168/2004 OF
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
DATED 02/12/2004
EXHIBIT 1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN AND OP NO.169/2004
OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
KASARAGOD DATED 13/10/2004
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO. 58/2005 IN
OP.NO.168/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 09/07/2024
AND TYPED COPY
EXHIBIT 2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO.57/2005 IN
OP NO.169/2004 OF CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD DATED 09/07/2024
AND TYPED COPY
