Availability of Alternate Remedies Will Not Bar a Consumer Complaint

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Chhattisgarh High Court on its own Motion

v.

State of Maharashtra

(SCC OnLine 2016 Bom 8426 decided on 10.09.2016)

FACTS

Rajesh Kumar Agrawal has lodged a consumer complaint before the district forum alleging that his service provider adopted unfair trade practice in providing telecom services though he had paid for data service and while using the data services, balance lying in call account was deducted unauthorized which amounts to unfair trade practice. The District Forum, Korba rejected the complaint filed by the Petitioner holding that the complaint is barred under the section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as statutory alternative remedy of arbitration is available to the Petitioner.  The Petitioner being aggrieved by such decision preferred an appeal before the State Dispute Redressal Forum relying upon Supreme Court judgment. The State Dispute Redressal Forum to dismissed the appeal citing the same reason as that of District Forum. Being further aggrieved and dissatisfied the Petitioner presented a Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

The dispute raised by the Petitioner has been rejected by District Forum and upheld by the State Commission is only on the ground of availability of statutory alternative provided under Section 7-B of the Act of 1885 by way of arbitration to the Petitioner.

Whether the district forum or the State Commission is justified in rejecting the complaint filed by the Petitioner on the ground of availability of the statutory alternative remedy.

The object and the reason of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, is to promote and protect the right of consumers. Such as to be protected against unfair trade practice the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interest will receive due consideration at appropriate forums. And to achieve this objective consumer dispute, quasi-judicial machinery, is sought to be set up at District, State, and Central Level.

HELD

The High Court observed that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provision of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force, and therefore, the consumer dispute raised by the Petitioner before the District Forum was maintainable. Consequently, the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission were set aside, and the District Forum, Korba was directed to entertain and consider the petitioner’s claim on its own merits.

LEARNING OUTCOME

The remedy available to the consumer under the Act of 1986 is an additional remedy and other statutory remedies available to the consumer under the other statutory law would not bar the consumer to avail the remedy available to under the provision of the Act 1986.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -