Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ
MR. P K CHANDRASHEKAR – Appellant
Versus
MR. TARUN AGARWAL – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 29114 OF 2024 (GM-CON)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Abhishek S Haliker, Jagadeesha Gowda
For the Respondents: Ishita Yadu, Shashank Kumar
The High Court will not exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with an order dismissing an appeal for delay if a statutory alternative remedy, such as a revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is available to the party.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged orders passed by the II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The State Commission had dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 214 days, noting that the reasons provided in the affidavit were unsatisfactory and the delay was a result of negligence. The court examined whether it should interfere with the dismissal of the appeal. It was observed that a statutory alternative remedy is provided to the petitioner under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, allowing for the filing of a revision petition before the National Commission. With the aforesaid liberty, we dispose of the petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the dismissal of an appeal due to an unjustified delay of 214 days. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. availability of statutory alternative remedy under section 58(1)(b) of the consumer protection act, 2019. (Para 3) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ISSUE AN ORDER, WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED PASSED IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.252/2016 II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE AND IN APPEAL NO.2038/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL BENCH KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AT BANGALORE VIDE ORDER DATED 24/09/2024, HEREBY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL., AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore in Consumer Complaint No.252/2016 and order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bengaluru in Appeal No.2038/2024.
2. The petitioner herein has filed an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Bengaluru in Consumer Complaint No.252/2016 dated 27.09.2023. This appeal was filed with a delay of 214 days which came to be dismissed by the Commission, wherein, at para 3 of the Order, it has stated as under:
"3. On perusal of the affidavit sworn by the appellant and the reasons sworn in the affidavit are not satisfactory. As soon as the order passed by the District Commission free copies are mandatorily sent to the both parties. Hence, the grounds urged that, no knowledge with respect to the order passed in the complaint are not just and sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing this appeal. It is a clear case of negligence on the part of this Complainant in not preferring this appeal will within time. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed."
3. The statutory alternative remedy of filing the revision petition is provided to the petitioner under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, we are not interfering with the order, however, we are giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the National Commission by filing a revision petition, if so advised.
With the aforesaid liberty, we dispose of the petition.
