AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 31.5.2011 passed in Complaint No. 62/2011. The said order in passed by the Dakshina Kannada Consumer District Redress-el Forum, Mangalore. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noticed that against an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, an appeal is provided u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the Tribunal has made the following observation in the said order:
In view of the above discussion we hold that, the Scheme 1995 is very dear and the law laid down by the Hon''ble National Commission and the Hon''ble State Commission at the same time the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India also considered the same issue. The Hon''ble State Commission in appeal No. 1256/2009 dated 21.8.2009 decided the issue of granting two years weightage, finally it was decide by the Hon''ble National Commission on 29.6.2010. If there it was ambiguity or the interpretation of the Hon''ble Courts/forums are not correct they should have preferred an appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court and see that the order passed by the lower Courts/Forums have been quashed. But there is no such order till now. However, we find that, the Opposite Party No. 1 despite of holding many number of judgments in their hand forced these; senior citizens i.e., Complainants to approach the District Forum for that the Opposite Party No. 1 shall pay adequate compensation by way of interest. By considering the age of the Complainants and also the inconvenience corned to them for all these years, we direct the Opposite Party No. 1 as follows:
Xxxxx
It is contended that the same, on the face, of it indicates that it is erroneous, inasmuch as the said finding has been rendered contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 30844/2010 in the earlier proceedings relating to computation of the period for payment of provident fund. The question of law in that regard is kept open by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which has to be decided.
Having noticed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that, even if an erroneous finding has been rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the Appellate Authority viz., the State Commission would be entitled to rectify such error after noticing the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and therefore, in my view, an appeal remedy provided, re an efficacious remedy and hence, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. ''The grounds urged in this petition can in any event be urged before the State Commission in the appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner is relegated to the appellate remedy u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, the tune, if any, spent before this Court by die petitioner shall be taken into consideration by the State Commission while- entertaining the appeal. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of No order as to costs.