Back
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, NINALA JAYASURYA
G. Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
ORDER
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
1. The petitioner herein aggrieved by the Order dated 14.03.2024 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vizianagaram (hereinafter referred to “The Commission”), in C.C.No.33 of 2023 filed the present Writ Petition.
2. The petitioners filed C.C.No.33 of 2023 against the respondent Nos.3 to 5, inter alia, seeking a direction to (a) deliver the original title deed dated 23.06.2010 in respect of a plot bearing No.69/B, IDA, Nellimarla, which was furnished as security and created an equitable mortgage for the loan availed from the Central Bank of India, (b) pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/-towards loss of the document and deficiency of service for the failure on the part of the Bank in delivering the original document in respect of the said plot, and (c) pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-towards mental agony and damages to the petitioners/complainants, apart from costs of Rs.2,00,000/-.
3. The respondent-Bank contested the matter by filing counter affidavit. The Commission on considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the parties before it, formulated the following points for consideration:
The District Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing conditions contrary to Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, which mandates relief for deficiency of service.
The provisions of the SARFAESI Act overrule other laws, including the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer commissions lack jurisdiction in matters covered by SARFAESI when statutory remedies are availa....
(1) Return of title Deed – The materials on record would convincingly prove that the complainant had repaid the entire amount and it was obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to return the t....
Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under SARFAESI Act not entertained; proper course to address jurisdictional issues is through the District Commission.
(1) Jurisdictional Excess – The NCDRC observed that the District Commission prima facie exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory direction for payment in an application filed by the consumer ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act and the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of....
Consumer Dispute – By no stretch of imagination, the receipt of amount more than Rs.20,000/- without cheque is not relevant issue for adjudication of the consumer disputes between the respondent and ....
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where effective alternative remedies exist, especially in consumer disputes; exceptions are limited and clearly defined.
Revisional jurisdiction - The present revision petition is therefore an attempt by the petitioner to urge this Commission to re-assess, re-appreciate the evidence which cannot be done in revisional j....
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
