SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharat P.Deshpande, J.
Harish S/o. Ramesh Gawai - Appellant
Versus
Registrar (Legal) - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 289 of 2024
Decided On : 13-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
P.D.Randive, Advocate, Mayuri H.Deshmukh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, delineates the distinct roles of revisions and appeals, with revisions not applicable to final orders of the District Forum, which must be appealed under Section 41, including a deposit requirement.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION - JURISDICTION OF STATE COMMISSION - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Sec. 41, Sec. 47 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly focusing on Sections 41 and 47. It highlighted that Section 41 provides the right to appeal against final orders of the District Commission, while Section 47 allows for revisions only in cases of jurisdictional errors. The court interpreted these provisions to conclude that the petitioner could not file a revision against a final order, as it was an appealable matter under Section 41, which includes a requirement to deposit 50% of the awarded amount. This interpretation influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged an order from the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that directed a revision filed by the petitioner to be registered as an appeal. The petitioner argued that under Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, they had the right to file a revision against the final order of the District Forum.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act clearly distinguish between revisional and appellate powers. It concluded that the petitioner was attempting to circumvent the requirement of depositing 50% of the awarded amount by filing a revision instead of an appeal, which was not permissible under the law.

Issues: Whether the petitioner could file a revision against a final order of the District Forum, or if the proper course was to file an appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 41 provides a clear mechanism for appealing final orders of the District Commission, and Section 47 does not allow for revisions against such final decisions. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the District Forum after a decision on merits was an improper use of the revision process.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, affirming the State Commission's order to register the proceedings as an appeal under Section 41, with no costs awarded.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard with consent for final disposal.

4. The short issue involved in the present petition is order passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dtd. 5/12/2023 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner is directed to be registered as appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that provisions of Sec. 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 clearly permit aggrieved party to file revision even against the final order of the District Forum and thus the petitioner filed a revision, it ought to have been registered as revision. He submit that the directions of the State Commission to register such revision as an appeal is illegal and affecting the rights of the petitioner.

6. Learned A.G.P. opposed the said application by saying that the provisions of Sec. 47 clearly distinguish the revisional power as well as the appellate power and once the dispute is decided finally by the District Forum, the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an appeal.

7. Sec. 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 read thus:

    47. Jurisdiction of State Commission.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain-

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central

Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof, and a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more members as the President may deem fit: Provided that the senior-most member shall preside over the Bench. (3) Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it: Provided that the President or the other members, as the case may be, shall give opinion on the point or points so referred within a period of one month from the date of such reference. (4) A complaint shall be instituted in a State Commission within the limits of whose jurisdiction, - (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided in such case, the permission of the State Commission is given; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant reside

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top