Madras High Court
The Principal vs District Consumer Disputes ... on 7 January, 2022
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
and M.P.No.2 of 2015
The Principal,
St.Joseph's Matriculation Higher
Secondary School,
Trichy Road, Coimbatore – 641018. ...Petitioner
Vs
1.District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum [DCDRF],
Rep. by its President,
Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
2.Minor R.Sri Tharin
Rep. by her Natural Guardian
and Father A.Radhakrishnan. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in respect of
CC.No.365 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Dr.FR.A.Xavier Arulraj
For Respondents : No appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
ORDER
The writ on hand has been instituted to quash the complaint filed by
the second respondent in C.C.No.365/2013. The second respondent filed a
complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Coimbatore seeking the
relief of compensation and to repay the fees amount collected by the writ
petition Institution.
2.Challenging the very complaint, the present writ petition has been
filed.
3.The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
mainly contended that the petitioner is Educational Institution and the
services provided are personal services and the second respondent will not
fall under the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act.
Therefore, the very complaint itself is liable to be quashed. The learned
senior counsel drew the attention of this Court with reference to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Registrar, University
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
of Madras vs. Union of India in W.P.Nos.1700/1992 and batch dated
19.12.1994. Relying on the judgment, it is contended that when the
complaint itself is not maintainable and the District Forum has no
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, then the writ petition is to be
entertained.
4.This Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint
admittedly is filed by the second respondent seeking certain relief. The
District Consumer Forum is empowered to adjudicate the issues on merits
including the maintainability of the complaint. The District Forum is
empowered under the Act to decide all issues raised between the authorities
including the ground of maintainability of the complaint under the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Thereafter, if the petitioner is
aggrieved, then they are bound to approach the State Consumer Forum.
Contrarily, the writ petition need not be entertained under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the purpose of quashing of the complaint filed by
the second respondent under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
5.The Division Bench judgment referred by the learned senior counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
is of no avail in view of the fact that the said case was filed challenging the
constitutional validity of some of the provisions of the Act and therefore, the
writ petition was entertained by the High Court. In case where the
Consumer Forum is not functioning or become defunct, then writ petitions
may be entertained by the High Court but not otherwise. Therefore, the
grievances of the petitioner are to be redressed before the District Consumer
Forum concerned by filing an appropriate counter or by filing an application
for grant of relief and thereafter if aggrieved has to approach the State
Consumer Forum for adjudication. Contrarily, the writ petition cannot be
entertained for the purpose of quashing of the complaint filed under the
provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In the event of entertaining such
writ petition, no doubt the High Court is unnecessarily interfering with the
functioning of the District Consumer Forum under the provisions of the Act
and the same will set a wrong precedent so as to pave way for such persons
to approach the High Court in each and every occasion for the purpose of
quashing of the complaint which is otherwise not permissible under the
provisions of the Act.
6.This being the principles to be followed, the petitioner is at liberty to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
pursue the case before the District Consumer Forum and thereafter approach
the State Consumer Forum, if they are still aggrieved in the manner
prescribed under the provisions of the Act and by following the procedures.
7.The learned senior counsel for the petitioner made a submission that
the petitioner has filed a petition to reject the complaint on the ground of
maintainability. It is for them to pursue.
8.With this liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.01.2022
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order /Non-speaking order
cse
To
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum [DCDRF],
Rep. by its President,
Collectorate Complex,
Coimbatore – 641 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
cse
W.P.No.5680 of 2015
07.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
