Shiv Kant Verma v. Smt. Madhu Rani

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Kaushal, A.C to Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate 15/16.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The writ petition was preferred with the following prayer: Issuance order/orders, appropriate writ/ writs, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 2438 of 2013 whereby and where under the Hon’ble National Commission had set aside the order date 22.05.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 109/2012 and the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Dhanbad in Execution Case No. 42/2011 and had further dismissed the execution petition as satisfied.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner has received instruction that the petitioner has passed away during pendency of the writ petition, which is of the year 2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory reported in (2012) 8 SCC 524 and also in view of the provisions of Section 23 and 27A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The impugned decision was taken under the unamended Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that the position of law has not undergone any change under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also. It is pointed out that under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 also the writ petition won’t be maintainable in view of the statutory forum of appeal against the order of NCDRC before the Apex Court. It is further submitted that appeal, if any has to be preferred within 30 day from the date of the order of the NCDR and delay, if any can be condonable for sufficient cause by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that too on subject to deposit of 50% of the amount in the manner prescribed. -2-

On consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent as also the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under which the impugned order was passed, it would not be proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner before the Apex Court in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory (supra). However, the writ petitioner has also died and no substitution has been carried out.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, A.C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) A.Mohanty