Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1858
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
THE MANAGER – Appellant
Versus
S K MISHRA – Respondent
First Appeal No. 48 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhijay Negi
For the Respondents:
Court declined jurisdiction under Article 227 when a statutory appeal is available under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 51 - Appeal against a judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - The petitioner challenged the modification of a previous judgment which ordered the payment of compensation - The court declined to entertain the petition under Article 227, stating alternative statutory remedy available - The petitioner is given three weeks to file a statutory appeal. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Statutory Remedy - Importance of pursuing statutory remedies available cannot be bypassed by invoking powers under Article 227 of the Constitution - The court refrained from exercising jurisdiction noting the availability of appeal under the Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 2).
SL. N o .
D a t e
Of f i ce N o t e s, r e p o r t s, o r d e r s o r p r o ce e d i n g s o r d i r e ct i o n s a n d Re g i st r a r ’ s o r d e r w i t h Si g n a t u r e s
COURT’ S OR JUD GE’ S ORD ERS
2 3 4 W PM S/ 2 0 5 2 / 2 0 2 5 H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J 1. Mr. Abhij ay Negi, learned counsel for t he pet it ioners. Pet it ioner has challenged t he . j udgm ent rendered by St at e Consum er Disput es Redressal Com m ission, Dehradun in First Appeal No. 48 of 2023. By t he said j udgm ent , appeal filed by pet it ioner was part ly allowed and j udgm ent and order passed by Dist rict Consum er Disput es Redressal Com m ission was m odified and pet it ioner was direct ed t o pay a sum of t o t he respondent ₹5,49,070/- com plainant t oget her wit h int erest at t he rat e of 6% per annum from t he dat e of filing of t he com plaint t ill act ual realizat ion and also to pay ₹10,000/- t owards lit igat ion charges and counsel fee. Since pet it ioner has rem edy of filing . an appeal under Sect ion 51 of t he Consum er Prot ect ion Act , 2019, t herefore, t his Court is not inclined t o ent ert ain t his pet it ion under Art icle 227 of t he Const it ut ion. Even t hough, t he appeal before Nat ional Consum er Disput es Redressal Com m ission has t o be adm it t ed only on a subst ant ial quest ion of law involved in t he m at t er, however, t hat cannot be a ground for by- passing t he rem edy of st at ut ory appeal, which is available t o t he pet it ioner. . Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner t hen subm it s t hat he will file appeal
