A party may seek judicial direction to expedite pending applications before consumer authorities when faced with potential coercive actions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a dealer of the TATA Motors and the first opposite party in CC.No.186/2023 on the file of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur. The said complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent alleging deficiency of service against the petitioner and the second opposite party therein, the manufacturer of the said vehicle. As per Ext.P1 order, the complaint was allowed directing the opposite parties therein to replace the vehicle supplied by the 1^st petitioner, and to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards the compensation and monthly loss, along with Rs.10,000/- as cost. It was further directed that in case the opposite parties fail to replace the vehicle, an amount of Rs.19,79,082/- with 7% interest per annum till the date of realization shall be paid.

2. Challenging Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is numbered as FA.No.92 of 2025. The said appeal was filed along with the application to condone the delay of 407 days and a copy of the said petition is produced as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the application submitted by the petitioner for stay of Ext.P1 proceedings pending consideration of the same. It is also pointed out that the 2^nd opposite party in the complaint has already approached the said Commission by filing Appeal No.158/2024, in which Ext.P6 order of stay is passed, as regards the proceedings against the said opposite party. Since the execution proceedings are being pursued during the pendency of this writ petition, against the petitioner, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directing the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 application for stay at the earliest or within the time period fixed by this Honourable Court.

ii. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of translation of the vernacular documents.

iii. Issue such other writ, order or direction as the Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case”

3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 07.04.2025, this Court passed an interim order staying further coercive proceedings pursuant to the order passed in EA.No.26/24 in C.C.No.186/23 by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for a period of two months, which is being extended from time to time and the said interim order is even now in subsistence. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 2, opposing the relief sought for.

4. I have heard Sri.C.Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.B.Biju, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The limited relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the State Commission to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 applications which are now pending consideration and to keep the coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance until such a decision is taken.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent opposed the contention by pointing out that as per Section 58(1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019, the petitioner has a remedy of revision before the National Commission in case the State Commission failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Therefore, it was pointed out that this writ petition need not be entertained.

7. However, after carefully going through the entire materials placed before this Court, I am of the view that, as the appeal submitted by the petitioner along with the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal