The court upheld that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides a complete remedy mechanism, and writ petitions are unwarranted when alternative remedies are available.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2025

The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 execution petition on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur ('Forum', for short).

2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in Ext.P5 execution petition filed by the second respondent. The second respondent had filed C.C.No.278/2016 before the Forum, against the petitioner, which was allowed by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (State Commission,) which was partly allowed by Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner had preferred R.P.No.110/2022 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner has also filed an application to stay Exts.P2 and P3 orders. In the meantime, the second respondent has put Exts.P2 and P3 to execution before the Forum. The Forum has proceeded with the execution petition. The second respondent has been examined and the petitioner has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The action of the Forum in entertaining Ext.P5 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Ext.P5 execution petition is filed to execute Exts.P2 and P3, which as of now, is not stayed. Therefore, there is no legal bar in the second respondent executing the order.

5. Indisputably, the order has been passed by the Forum in exercise of its powers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Even though the petitioner challenged the order in appeal, the same was also dismissed. It is reported that the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the National Commission, but no stay order has been produced till date.

6. Interpreting the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , the Honourable Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal v. Vehicle Factory [2012 (8) SCC 524] has held that the High Court shall not exercise its plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with orders passed under the Act because of the alternative remedy contained in the Act.

7. In Regional Cancer Center, Tvm v. Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Tvm and Others [2021 (5) KHC 236] a Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:

“14. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a self contained and a complete mechanism for redressal of the consumers related grievances by filing complaint, appeal and revision from the District Forum up to the Supreme Court subject to limits of jurisdiction provided therein. When hierarchy of remedies are provided under the , the appellant has to avail the remedy under the said Act. Ext.P10 order passed by the State Commission is revisable before the National commission under S.21(b). The appellant having contested the claim before the CDRF on merits and subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the CDRF and further elected the remedy available to it by challenging the order of the CDRF before the State Commission by preferring appeal under S.15 of the Act, cannot switch over to another remedy in midway, even assuming such remedy by way of a writ petition is available to the appellant. We find no exceptional or extra ordinary circumstances warranting interference with the order of the State Commission invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In view of the alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, and the exposition of law in the afore cited decisions, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner to work out its remedies in accordance with law.