A Writ Petition under Article 226 is not maintainable where an effective alternative remedy exists under statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

This appeal has been filed with a delay of 24 days. Having perused the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Hence, C.M.Appl. No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay is allowed.

2. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 23.08.2025 passed in WP(C) No.30770/2025 filed by the appellant whereby the Writ Petition has been dismissed without entering into the merits of the case and only in respect of the jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain the complaint.

Facts:-

3. The brief facts of the case are that the 1^st respondent/complainant’s vehicle was detained by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, ie,. the 2^nd respondent herein. In order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the amount as claimed, ie, Rs.68,437/-. The 1^st respondent approached the appellant seeking re-

imbursement of the said amount as the vehicle was covered with an insurance package policy covering the third party risk including property damage etc. Since there was no re-imbursement from the appellant, the 1^st respondent submitted a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC No.580/2023. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the District Commission was raised on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the disputes which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. The District Forum, after hearing the parties concerned, passed order dated 21.04.2025, rejected the said contention and held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act , 2019. The appellant herein, being aggrieved, has challenged the order passed by the District Consumer Forum on the ground that the District Commission erred in entertaining the complaint under the provisions of the Act of 2019 and had filed the Writ Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that by virtue of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 there is a clear bar in entertaining complaint of this nature by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The issue involved in this case is that the compensation payable to a third party in a motor accident case, whether the District Commission has the authority to adjudicate in the proceedings under the provisions of the and the Consumer Forum held that the complaint is maintainable. Being aggrieved, the appellant has approached this court in Writ Petition.

However, the learned Single Judge came to the following conclusion:-

“14. Thus, after carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof, with reference to the grievance highlighted by the 1^st respondent in the complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, I am of the view that, the question of jurisdiction was rightly decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and no interference is required. It is therefore held that, the District Commission is empowered to consider the grievances highlighted in the complaint, on merits.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the other contentions raised by the petitioner. It is clarified that the observations made in this judgment, are only with respect to the jurisdiction of the District Commission to entertain the complaint and no findings on the sustainability of the claim of the 1st respondent on merits, are entered into by this court.”

5. On perusal of the aforesaid, it can be seen that the District Forum came to the conclusion that it had powers to consider the grievance highlighted in the complaint on merits as well and therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order i