Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Pallepati Shoba

The present writ petition is arising out of the proceedings pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Telangana at Hyderabad (for short “the State Commission”) in R.P.No.3 of 2017 against P.P.No.7 of 2016 against C.C.No.50 of 1996.

The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.1 before this Court has filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Consumer Forum at Warangal and the same was registered as C.C.No.50 of 1996. The complaint, which is on record, furnishes the number of shares in respect of which a categoric statement was made by the complainant that the present petitioner – Bank is not returning the shares in spite of the fact that the entire loan was cleared in the matter. The Consumer Forum has allowed the complaint by order dated 21.07.1999 directing the petitioner-Bank to return the shares. The petitioner, who was the respondent before the Consumer Forum, preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the same was registered as F.A.No.176 of 2000 and it was dismissed on 05.12.2000. The petitioner – Bank instead of filing an appeal before the National Commission has preferred a writ petition before this Court i.e., W.P.No.1516 of 2017 and the same was disposed of by order dated 11.01.2017 directing the petitioner – Bank to approach the State Commission by filing a revision. Meaning thereby, no relief was granted to the petitioner - Bank by this Court in the earlier writ petition. A revision petition was preferred i.e., R.P.No.3 of 2017 before the State Commission and the same was dismissed on 15.06.2017. Thereafter, before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission an appeal/execution revision petition was preferred i.e., ERP.No.3 of 2017 and the same was withdrawn on 16.05.2019.

While all this was going on, respondent No.1-complainant, keeping in view Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has preferred a penalty petition and the same was registered as P.P.No.7 of 2016 and is still pending.

The petitioner – Bank has filed the present writ petition and prayed for the following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the order dated 15.06.2017 passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in R.P.No.3 of 2017 affirming the order of District Consumer Forum, Warangal, dated 05.01.2017 passed in P.P.No.7 of 2016 and dismiss P.P.No.7 of 2016 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Warangal.”

Meaning thereby, quashment of penalty proceedings has been sought in the present writ petition. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent - complainant is fighting for her rights since 1995. She does have an order in her favour from the District Forum and the State Commission and still she is running from pillar to post. At the relevant point of time, when the complaint was preferred, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was in force and Section 27-A of the said Act certainly provides for an appeal. Section 27 reads as under:

“27-A. Appeal against order passed under Section 27:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal under Section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from –

(a) The order made by the District Forum to the State Commission;

(b) The order made by the State Commission to the National Commission; and

(c) The order made by the National Commission to the Supreme Court.

(2) Except as aforesaid, no appeal shall lie to any Court from any order of a District Forum or a State Commission or the National Commission.

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of an order of a District Forum or a State Commission or, as the case may be, the National Commission:

Provided that the State Commission or the National Commission or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if, it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of thirty days.”

The aforesaid settled provision of law certainly provides for an appeal from an order made by the District Consumer Forum to State Commission. Not only this, under the new Act i.e., The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 72 also provides for such an appeal and therefore, as there is a remedy of appeal in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.