Statutory remedies under the Consumer Protection Act must be pursued instead of writ petitions, reinforcing the necessity of adherence to procedural requirements, including appeal and deposit of awarded amounts.

ORDER :

[S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

Under assail is the order dated 26.06.2024, passed in C.C.No.155 of 2023, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai.

2. Curiously, the State has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India knowing the fact that statutory appeal remedy has been contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and an appeal is to be preferred before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

3. Such writ petitions are filed with an idea to get over the period of limitation. Pertinently, Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, contemplates “Appeal”. Accordingly, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. Importantly, second proviso clause has been inserted by the Act 50 of 1993 and it stipulates that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.

4. Therefore, the contention of the State in filing the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission needs to be considered in view of the fact that the State has not approached the High Court in clean hands. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maduai, passed final orders in C.C.No.155 of 2023, on 26.06.2024. But, the present writ petition has been filed on 17.03.2025 after nearly about nine months from the date of passing of the said order. Pertinently, the petitioners have contested the case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and therefore, they were aware of the proceedings. Further, the Government Pleaders are expected to provide correct legal advise to the authorities concerned, since the money spent on such litigations is of the public exchequer. Any ill-advise by the law officers cannot be brushed aside as tax payers' money is involved in such matters. Such unnecessary litigations are filed by the State knowing the fact that statutory appeal remedy is provided under the provisions of the Act concerned and it is a routine practice even by the lawyers to prefer appeals before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

5. The core contention of the petitioners is that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai, has passed the impugned order without deciding the maintainability of the complaint lodged by the first respondent under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. That apart, for preferring an appeal as against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 50% of the award amount is to be deposited. Even presuming that an order has been passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission without jurisdiction, such a legal point can be raised before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and in such an event, if the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is satisfied, they may pass suitable orders. The State has subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the District Consumer D