Ganapati Engineering Co vs Nilachal Sahu And Another ..... ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2660 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ganapati Engineering Co vs Nilachal Sahu And Another ..... ... on 19 March, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                W.P.(C) No.21544 of 2025
            Ganapati Engineering Co.,       .....        Petitioner
            Kalahandi
                                                        Represented by Adv. -

                                                        Mr. Gokulananda Sahu,
                                                        A. Pattnayak

                                           -versus-
            Nilachal Sahu and another           .....         Opposite Parties
                                                        Represented by Adv. -




                                W.P.(C) No.21545 of 2025
            Ganapati Engineering Co.,           .....               Appellants
            Kalahandi
                                                        Represented by Adv. -

                                                        Mr. Gokulananda Sahu,
                                                        A. Pattnayak

                                       -versus-
            Sushil Kumar Panigrahi and      .....                 Respondents
            another
                                                        Represented by Adv. -




                                 CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

                                           ORDER

19.03.2026 Order No.

04. 1. These matters are taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1-Complainant in W.P.(C) No.21545 of 2025. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The abovenoted writ applications have been filed by the dealer of a harvester being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 and 15.05.2025 passed in R.A. No.08 of 2024 and R.A. No.07 of 2024 respectively. Both the abovenoted R.A. applications arise out of Consumer Complaints filed before the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kalahandi bearing C.C. Case No.55 of 2023 and C.C. No.24 of 2024 respectively. Since the dispute involved in both the applications are same and the parties are almost identically in both the applications, except the complainant-Opposite Party No.1 who are different in the two writ applications, both the writ applications were taken up for admission hearing together and are disposed of by the following common order.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner in the present writ application was a dealer of the Opposite Party No.2 in Kalahandi District of the State of Odisha. He further submitted that a harvest machine was sold to the complainant which was eventually found to be defective. Accordingly, the Complainant-Opposite Party No.1 in both the writ applications approached the learned Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission by filing a complaint case. The learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi disposed of both the consumer complaints vide order

dated 13.11.2024 (in CC No.55 of 2023) which is the subject matter of dispute in W.P.(C) No.21544 of 2025 as well as the order dated 21.11.2024 passed in (in CC No.24 of 2024) which is the subject matter of dispute in W.P.(C) No.21545 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument submitted before this Court that the learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi has erroneously fixed the liability jointly on both the manufacturer as well as the Petitioner-dealer. He further contended that the learned D.C.D.R.C. in the impugned order has categorically held that certain manufacturing defects were detected in the machine which was supplied by the manufacturer through the present Petitioner, who was working as a dealer at the relevant point of time. On such finding, the learned D.C.D.R.C. allowed the complaint case thereby awarding compensation to the complainant in both the cases.

6. He further submitted that the present Petitioner who was working as a dealer of the Opposite Party No.2-manufacturer is in no way liable and responsible for any manufacturing defect that was found in the product sold by the manufacturer-Opposite Party No.2 to the present writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the learned D.C.D.R.C. has committed an error of law by imposing the entire compensation amount jointly on the Opposite Parties. He further contended that so far as manufacturing defects are concerned the present Petitioner- distributary is in no way responsible. In the course of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that although

this aspect was raised specifically by filing a review petition after disposal of the consumer complaints, the learned D.C.D.R.C. did not consider the same and the review petition filed by the Petitioner were dismissed.

7. Being aggrieved by both the original order passed in the consumer complaint as well as the order passed in the review application filed by the Petitioner before the learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi, the Petitioner in both the cases has approached this Court by filing the abovenoted writ applications.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.1- complainant in W.P.(C) No.21545 of 2025 categorically submitted before this Court that he has no grievance against the present Petitioner as the machine which was supplied to him was a defective one. He further elaborated that the harvester which was manufactured by the Opposite Party No.2 to the writ application was having certain manufacturing defects. As such, the complainant approached the learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi claiming compensation and further refund of the entire amount paid in respect of the harvester by the complainant. He further pointed out that in the meantime an execution case has already been initiated, wherein a warrant has been issued against both the Opposite Parties i.e. the manufacture as well as the dealer.

9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for both sides on a careful examination of the factual background of the present case, further on a close scrutiny of the impugned orders in both the writ applications, this Court is of the view that the dispute involved in

the present writ applications was the subject matter of dispute before the learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi, the learned D.C.D.R.C., Kalahandi by following the procedure has right or wrongly come to a conclusion. The Consumer Protection Act provides a mechanism to file an appeal to the State Consumer Dispute Rederssal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack. The Petitioner instead of approaching the appellate forum as provided under the statute has filed this writ application challenging the impugned orders. On a careful analysis of the factual background in the present case, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are appealable and the appeal lies to the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. However, the Petitioner instead of approaching the Appellate Court has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. Although availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However and under certain contingencies the writ applications can be entertained by this Court. In the aforesaid context, this Court would like to refer to the judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 22, on a careful scrutiny of the impugned orders in both writ applications, this Court found that none of the ground as has been indicated in the abovenoted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is available to the Petitioner to make this writ application maintainable before this Court. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application only on the ground of availability of an

alternative remedy in the shape of an appeal.

10. Accordingly, both the writ applications are being disposed of by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the learned State Commission by filing an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. In the event such application is filed seeking condonation of delay, the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission shall do well to consider the same liberally and condone the delay by taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioners had approached this Court under a wrong impression. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the warrant of arrest has already been issued against the present Petitioner. This Court further directs that the warrant issued against the Petitioner shall not be executed for a period of eight weeks. It is open to the Petitioner to move an application for any interim relief before the Appellate Forum. In the event, any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the appeal before the learned State Commission.

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ applications stand disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Sisir

Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT