Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The order dated 11th March, 2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-1, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-1/Case No.203/2012 is under challenge in this writ petition dated 11th March, 2014.

2. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that an appeal, being FA No.959 of 2013, was preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the State Commission) questioning the legality and/or validity of the order dated 11th March, 2013, but the application for condonation of delay in presentation of the appeal was rejected resulting in dismissal of the appeal itself.

3. It is noted that in this writ petition, the appellate order dated 20th February, 2014 is not under challenge.

4. In any event, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. The order dated 20th February, 2014 could have been carried by the petitioner in appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the National Commission) in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act.

5. In a decision of recent origin reported in (2012) 6 SCC 524 (Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factor