PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

The District Forum allowed the complaint partly and had directed the opposite parties including the petitioners to jointly pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-  to the complainants.  The said compensation was apportioned between the opposite parties.  The petitioners were directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- and opposite party No. 1 Manju Nath was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-.  The present petitioners were directed to pay the entire compensation in the first instance and  liberty was granted  to recover the half of the same from opposite party No.1, Manju Nath.  The opposite parties were also directed to pay interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till effective payment alongwith cost of Rs.1,000/-.  The order of the District Forum was challenged in appeal before the State Commission by the present petitioners as also opposite party No.1 Manju Nath.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 7.9.2007.  Instead of challenging the said order by way of revision before this Commission, the petitioners and opposite party No.1 Manju Nath chose to file Writ Petitions under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengalore.  The Hon’ble High Court while disposing of the Writ Petitions held that against the impugned order, a revision to the National Commission was provided for and when the petitioners had an alternative and efficacious remedy provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it was inappropriate for the Court to entertain the Writ Petitions.  The Writ Petitions were accordingly rejected with liberty to the petitioners and opposite party No.1, Manju Nath to avail of the statutory remedy.  The petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court which had been allowed to be withdrawn by the complainants.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 7.9.2007 of the State Commission by filing a revision petition with an application for condoning the delay of 1208 days in filing the revision petition.  We have heard counsel for the petitioner on the question of condonation of delay.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs MST Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107,  Om Prakash Saini Vs DCM Limited & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 622 and Coal India Limited & Anr. Vs Ujjal Transport Agency & Ors.(2011) 1 SCC 117.   Counsel for the petitioners submitted before us that delay in filing be condoned since the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy in good faith before the Hon’ble High Court.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, the rulings upon which reliance has been placed, do not in any manner help the petitioners.

We have gone through the record.  The primary reason for delay in filing the revision petition, as stated in the condonation application, is that the petitioners had approached the High Court of Karnataka in the matter and after dismissal of the petition, the revision petition has been filed in order to avail statutory remedy.

The question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners had acted with due diligence or in good faith in seeking remedy before the Hon’ble High Court.  The complaint was filed on 28.08.2006 and was disposed of by the District Forum on 09.05.2007.  The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission on 07.09.2007.  Instead of approaching this Commission by way of revision petition, which is the statutory remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the petitioners filed Writ Petition before the High Court.  It is not well settled that when effective, efficacious and alternative remedies are available under the statutes, a Writ Petition would not be entertained.  The petitioners have deprived the complainants from reaping the benefit of the order of the State Commission dated 7.9.2007 by resorting to the filing of Writ Petitions before the High Court.  We are not satisfied that the petitioners have acted with due diligence or in goodfaith in this case.  The objective of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide inexpensive and speedy redressal of the grievances of the consumers and any attempt by the service providers to negate the said objective has to be stopped since otherwise the very purpose of the Act shall stand frustrated.

At this stage, we would like to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in M/s Advance Scientific Equip. Ld. & Anr. Vs West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Dev & Anr. in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s) 17068-17069/2010 decided on 09.07.2010 which read as under:-

“We are further of the view that the petitioners’ venture of filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition even for a single day because an effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act and the orders passed by the State Commission did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction.”

The said special leave to appeal was filed before the Apex Court against order of this Commission in First Appeal No. 36/2010 wherein this Commission had declined to condone the delay of 901 days in filing the appeal. In that case also the petitioner had approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition U/S 227 of the Constitution of India which was dismissed with observation inter alia that remedy was available to file appeal U/S 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.  In our opinion observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Advance Scientific Equip. Ld. & Anr. Vs West Bengal Pharma & Photochemical Dev & Anr. (supra) apply with equal force to the matter under consideration.  The petitioner instead of availing efficacious remedy of revision, filed Writ Petition before the High Court with a view to delay the finality of the order of the fora and to deprive the complainants of the benefits of the orders of the fora below.  In our opinion, the petitioners have not acted with due diligence or in goodfaith as projected before us in approaching the High Court inspite of the settled position that when efficacious and alternative remedies are available under the Statutes, the Writ Petition would not be maintainable. In our opinion, the act of petitioners in approaching the High Court is nothing but abuse of process of Law and misadventure to derail the objective of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and to deprive the complainants of the fruits of orders passed by two fora below.

          In view of he above, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of 1208 days in filing this revision.  Condonation application is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.  If the cost is not deposited as ordered, action under section 27 of the Consumer Protection

Act be taken and the matter be put up by the Registrar for further direction.  Consequently, the revision stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms.