JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. The question which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 and Ors. against order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') ignoring that statutory remedy of appeal was available to them u/s 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the 1986 Act').

3. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against Bharti Tele-ventures Ltd., ICICI Bank Limited and American Express Bank Ltd. with the prayer for award of exemplary damages to the tune of `34,50,000/- for harassment, mental agony and financial loss suffered by her on account of unsolicited calls received on her mobile phone from various banks/ financial institutions and other companies. She pleaded that despite repeated representations made to the opposite parties, no remedial measure was taken by them and she continued to suffer harassment due to unsolicited calls which had adversely affected her life in different ways.

4. The State Commission took cognizance of the complaint filed by the Appellant, issued not