The court emphasized the importance of adjudication and the need to consider the claim of compensation before dismissing a complaint, highlighting the legislative intent for a speedy summary trial and the requirement for expeditious disposal of complaints.

Mir Dara Sheko, J.

1. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed assailing order No. 13 dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal (shortly to be called on hereafter only as the State Commission) in a complaint case CC/112/2013 (Avinash Kankani & Ors. v. New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited, shortly to be called on hereinafter only as the O.P) where, the State Commission, entertaining an application being MA 964 of 2015 filed by the O.P questioning maintainability of the said complaint case before the State Commission on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint with liberty to file the same before the appropriate forum.

2. Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that once the complaint case was admitted by the State Commission, registered it, pleadings were complete, as a result of filing of written version by the O.P evidence on affidavit was filed by the petitioner, the State Commission thereafter without adjudication ought not to have dismissed on lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Submitted further that every such orders passed by the State Commission since after registration of the complaint till before filing of application being MA 964/2015 being final order under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, shortly to be called on hereafter only as the Act, so far as the respective stages were concerned, and, there being no appeal, preferred by the opposite party against either of those final orders, then only recourse was opened before the State Commission to adjudicate the complaint case on merit instead of dismissing the complaint with liberty to file before the appropriate forum. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the case of Charan Sing v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. decided by three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 SCC 668. Submitted thereby to allow the revisional application setting aside the order of the State Commission.

3. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the O.P. inviting attention to Sections 19 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 per contra submitted that there having efficacious remedy in the Act, and since such special statute is self-contained with the steps to be adopted in any eventuality, the High Court should not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the order impugned passed by the State Commission upon hearing both sides, since only remedy of the petition was to prefer appeal before the National Commission, if aggrieved by the impugned order. Mr. Roy thereby relied on two following decisions:-

"1. Om Prakash Saini v. DCM Limited and Others reported in (2010) 11 SCC 622

2. Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 337."

Perused the materials on record including the impugned order and the cases cited at the Bar.

4. The only point, to be considered by this Court, is whether the State Commission committed any error in the decision making process by dismissing the complaint with liberty to file the complaint before appropriate forum, instead of adjudicating the complaint case, or, whether there being efficacious remedy in the Act this Court should remain within self-constrained restriction?

5. From record it reveals that the complaint case was filed on 05.06.2013 and upon hearing after admitting the complaint directed notice upon the O.P. fixing date for S.R and appearance. On next date the O.P appeared and on next date thereafter filed written version. The case was accordingly posted for evidence on affidavit which though was filed by the petitioner, but evading four intervening dates, the O.P, instead of submitting evidence by affidavit, filed the impugned application on 3rd December, 2015 being MA/964/2015 praying to excuse the delay in filing such application, and, prayed for dismissal of the complaint case on the fol