Dr. Hemalatha Rangachary v. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad

( per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah ) The petitioner questions the order made by the 1st respondent-District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad, in CC No.772 of 2007, dated 16-1-2009 and the proceedings in EA No.52 of 2011 in CC No.772 of 2007. The respondents 2 to 4 herein have made a consumer complaint on the file of the 1st respondent seeking compensation of Rs.19,60,500/- against respondents 1 to 6 therein. The petitioner herein is the 4th respondent in the said CC.

The 1st respondent by its order dated 16-1-2009 partly allowed the case by awarding compensation of Rs.5 lacs payable by respondents 1,2 & 4 to 6 therein. As the compensation awarded was not paid, the complainant filed EA being EA No.52 of 2011, in which the petitioner herein filed two applications being IA Nos.46 and 47 of 2012 in EA No.52 of 2011 in CC No.772 of 2007. The said two applications were filed to condone the delay of 146 days in filing petitions to set aside the ex-parte order and to reopen the main complaint respectively on the ground that the petitioner was not served with notice in the main case on his correct address. It was also stated in the said application made by the petitioner that the complainant and other respondents in the main case have colluded.

The 1st respondent dismissed the said applications by its order dated 16-5-2012 observing that it has no power to review or set aside its own order. It was also observed that the petitioner made a representation that a copy of the complaint along with material papers have been served on the petitioner, but due to Telangana agitation she could not represent her case. The writ petitioner stated that she could come to know of the details of the case only after the delivery of judgment copy on 28-12-2011 on her and she could not contact her counsel as she is 81 years old and bed ridden and therefore seeks to set aside the order dated 16-1-2009 passed in CC No.772 of 2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the reported decision of this Court in MEGACITY BUILDERS vs. AP STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (2003 (6) ALD 834), and contended that availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal is no bar to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

We are of the view that the facts of decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner was a case which arose against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, against which appeal lies to the National Forum. However, in the instant case, the impugned order is passed not by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, but by the District Consumer Forum. Since the petitioner has raised various contentious issues which are in the nature of questions of fact, same cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 27 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the light of the availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, if so advised. No order as to costs. _____________________ ESWARAIAH, J V. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J Dated: 29-8-2012. Nrg.