The Consumer Protection Act's framework entails a clear appellate process, limiting the grounds for judicial intervention under Article 226 to exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which advanced a loan to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent paid off the loan and demanded back the share amount of Rs.5,000/-. Petitioner did not return the share amount and hence respondent claimed return of share amount with compensation before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, however, suffered with Ext.P3 order. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.580 of 2010 and secured Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the petitioner was directed to return the share amount. It is thus challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Commission, this writ petition is filed.

2. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record and heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The question emerges for consideration in this writ petition is, in view of the provisions contained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 any interference can be made by this Court invoking the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal, especially when there is a clear provision of appeal to the National Commission, if aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission. It is clear from the provisions of the [for short, 'the Act'] that it is a self- contained statute promulgated with the intention of speedy, inexpensive and efficacious remedy to the litigants in that branch of law. The primary forum is District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to which a financial jurisdiction is provided under the statute. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Forum is entitled to prefer an appeal to the State Commission. However, the State Commission as well as the National Commission are provided with original jurisdiction with certain financial stipulations. So also, any person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission, is entitled to prefer an appeal under Sec.19 of the Act to the National Commission. Therefore, the statute provides clear and equally efficacious remedy for a litigant to prefer an appeal to the National Commission, aggrieved by an order of the State Commission.

4. Going through the facts and circumstances in the case at hand and the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State Commission, I am of the considered opinion, there are no exceptional circumstances justifying interference in the order passed by the State Commission, invoking the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true, under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances this Court will be justified in interfering with the orders of the District Forum or the State Commission. However, under normal and ordinary circumstances, when there is an efficacious remedy available to an aggrieved person, this Court will be loathe in interfering with such orders.

5. To put it more precise, Sec.17 of the Act, 1986 confers jurisdiction on the State Commission to entertain an appeal from the District Forum. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the said provision empowers the State Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

6. So also, clause (b) of Sec.21 enables the National Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission, where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not v