Can’t challenge consumer forum orders in HC: SC
Jehangir B Gai
Subject:Consumer forum’s order cannot be challenged in a writ petitionBackdrop: The Consumer Protection Act offers a three-tier redressal mechanism for resolution of consumer disputes. The Act provides a comparatively simpler, inexpensive and speedy mechanism for settlement of consumer grievances. If a party is not happy with an order, it can file an appeal before the next level tribunal, constituted under the Act.
Sometimes certain manufacturers, traders and service providers try to bypass the statutory channel of appeals. Instead, a writ petition is filed in the HC, challenging the consumer fora orders. The motive being to frustrate the consumer, who would find it costly and tedious to contest the case in HC.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a high court cannot entertain a writ petition against the orders of the consumer fora, for which the law prescribes a statutory channel of appeal.
Case Study: Cicily Kallarackal had filed a complaint against Vehicle Factory. The dispute was ultimately decided by the National Commission in Kallarackal’s favour. Vehicle Factory then filed a writ petition before the Kerala HC, challenging the order.
The HC allowed Vehicle Factory’s writ petition and set aside the National Commission’s order. Aggrieved, Kallarackal appealed to the SC, contending that the HC should not to have entertained the writ petition, as the Consumer Protection Act provides that the National Commission’s order could be challenged only before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this appeal was not filed in time and there was a delay of three-and-a-half years.
The SC refused to condone the delay as it was not satisfied with the excuse given for not having filed the appeal in time. However, considering the importance of the law point raised, the SC decided to adjudicate this issue and lay down the law in respect to filing of writ petitions.
The SC observed that a proper channel for appeals is prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. When the legislature provides a statutory mechanism for appeals to a higher court or tribunal, it would not be proper to permit the parties to bypass such statutory remedy provided by law and instead approach the HC in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of this finding, the SC held that high courts would not have the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in respect of which the law prescribes a remedy by way of appeal. Accordingly, it directed the high courts to exercise caution while entertaining writ petitions. It further directed that this order should be circulated to all the high courts and brought to the notice of all the HC judges. (Order dated August 6, 2012 by the bench of Justices Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar.) Impact: This ruling will save consumers the harassment of needlessly being dragged by the opponent to the HC to frustrate and tire them out.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e-mail isjehangir_gai@indiatimes.com)
The HC allowed Vehicle Factory’s writ petition and set aside the National Commission’s order. Aggrieved, Kallarackal appealed to the SC, contending that the HC should not to have entertained the writ petition, as the Consumer Protection Act provides that the National Commission’s order could be challenged only before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this appeal was not filed in time and there was a delay of three-and-a-half years.
The SC refused to condone the delay as it was not satisfied with the excuse given for not having filed the appeal in time. However, considering the importance of the law point raised, the SC decided to adjudicate this issue and lay down the law in respect to filing of writ petitions.
The SC observed that a proper channel for appeals is prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act. When the legislature provides a statutory mechanism for appeals to a higher court or tribunal, it would not be proper to permit the parties to bypass such statutory remedy provided by law and instead approach the HC in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of this finding, the SC held that high courts would not have the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in respect of which the law prescribes a remedy by way of appeal. Accordingly, it directed the high courts to exercise caution while entertaining writ petitions. It further directed that this order should be circulated to all the high courts and brought to the notice of all the HC judges. (Order dated August 6, 2012 by the bench of Justices Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar.) Impact: This ruling will save consumers the harassment of needlessly being dragged by the opponent to the HC to frustrate and tire them out.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e-mail isjehangir_gai@indiatimes.com)
Source:::::: The times of India, 29-04-2013, p.06,
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIM&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW
No comments:
Post a Comment