SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Cal) 829

High Court Of Calcutta
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
Sri Prabir Dey
Vs.
Goutam Mukherjee
Appeal No : CO. No. 1519 of 2010
Decided on : July 19, 2010

Important Points

Availability of alternative remedy under the statute affects the maintainability of a revisional application.

Subject

Civil Law - Consumer Protection

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT : S.15, S.21(b)

Headnote

Condonation of Delay - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The court refused to entertain the revisional application as an alternative remedy was available under the statute.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed due to rejection of the application for condonation of delay.

Finding of the Court:

The court refused to entertain the revisional application due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the statute.

Issues: Maintainability of the revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court refused to entertain the revisional application as an alternative remedy was available under the statute.

Final Decision: The revisional application was rejected, but the court made it clear that it had not considered the merit of the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Meheswari Sharma, Jayanta Banerjee, Paumita Mullick

JUDGMENT

1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : After being unsuccessful in the complaint case filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the said Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal, along with an application for condonation of delay of 590 days. THE learned Appellate Commission rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and as a consequence thereof, the appeal stood dismissed.

2. THE propriety of the said order was sought to be challenged by the petitioner before this Court in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate, appearing for the Opposite party raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application on the ground that the order impugned being appealable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the instant application cannot be entertained by this Court. As a matter of fact, Section 21 (b) provides for revisional power to be exercised by the National Commission. Since an alternative remedy is available under the statute, this Court refuses to entertain this revisional application before this Court.

3. THE revisional application, thus, stands rejected.

4. IT is, however, made clear that while disposing of this revisional application, this Court has not considered the merit of the impugned order. As such, the petitioner is absolutely free to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law. Leave is granted to the learned Advocate for the petitioner to take back the certified copy of the impugned order by supplying a true xerox copy of the same from the concerned department.




1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top