Revision cannot be maintained under Article 227 when an alternative remedy via appeal exists under the Consumer Protection Act.

1.The petitioner in O.P. No. 75/94 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tiruchirapalli, hereinafter called 'the District Forum', is the revision petitioner.

2. The petitioner had filed a claim petition before the District Forum for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,20,439.50, against the Insurance Company / respondent, for the damages to his vehicle, sustained in the accident, which took place on 29-9-1993, on the ground that the Insurance Company had not performed its obligation, whereas it had committed deficiency in service.

3. The respondent / Insurance Company opposed the application contending, that on the date of the accident, the petitioner did not possess a valid and effective driving license, to drive the Tourist Taxi and in this view, they are entitled to repudiate the claim of the petitioner.

4. The District Forum, considering the rival claim of the parties, as well as the position of the law, took the view that the rejection of the claim by the Insurance Company, solely on the ground of not possessing an effective valid driving license by the driver, cannot be justified in law and on facts. In this view, the District Forum had directed the respondent, to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as damages, caused to the vehicle with interest thereon at 15% per annum form 1-10-1993 till the date of payment, with compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.

5. The Insurance Company aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the State Forum in A.P. 1177/1996. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, hereinafter called the State Commission', appreciating the facts in issue, as well as the law, took the view that the District Forum had committed an error in not following the decision of the State Commission in A.P. No. 1443/95 and committed further error in following the decision reported in 1995 Madras LJ 82, which was considered by the State Commission and a contrary view was taken. This State Commission observing, that the District Forum ought to have followed the order passed by the Commission in A.P. No. 1443/1995, held that there was violation of the condition in the driver's clause in the policy and as such the insurance company cannot be held, to pay compensation. In this view of the matter, the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum, as per the order dated 1-4-1998.

6. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the State Commission filed this C.R.P. under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the correctness of the order passed by the State Commission.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. L. Rajah and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. K. S. Narasimhan.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision rendered by this Court reported in 1995 Madras LJ 82, is binding upon the District Forum as well as the State Commission, which was correctly accepted by the District Forum, whereas the State Commission had committed an error, in not accepting the position of law and in this view, this Court has jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed by the State Commission, thereby restoring the order passed by the District Forum.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company submits that the petition filed by the claimant under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, is not at all maintainable, in view of the fact that an appeal is provided, to question the validity of the order passed by the State Commission, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and in this view, the revision as such, i