(1.) Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which advanced a loan to the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent paid off the loan and demanded back the share amount of Rs. 5,000.00. Petitioner did not return the share amount and hence respondent claimed return of share amount with compensation before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, however, suffered with Ext.P3 order. Being aggrieved, respondent preferred appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.580 of 2010 and secured Ext.P4 judgment, whereby the petitioner was directed to return the share amount. It is thus challenging Ext.P4 order passed by the Commission, this writ petition is filed.
(2.) Perused the pleadings and the documents on record and heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) The question emerges for consideration in this writ petition is, in view of the provisions contained under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 any interference can be made by this Court invoking the power conferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal, especially when there is a clear provision of appeal to the National Commission, if aggrieved by the decision of the State Commission. It is clear from the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act'] that it is a self-contained statute promulgated with the intention of speedy, inexpensive and efficacious remedy to the litigants in that branch of law. The primary forum is District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to which a financial jurisdiction is provided under the statute. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Forum is entitled to prefer an appeal to the State Commission. However, the State Commission as well as the National Commission are provided with original jurisdiction with certain financial stipulations. So also, any person aggrieved by an order of the State Commission, is entitled to prefer an appeal under Sec. 19 of the Act to the National Commission. Therefore, the statute provides clear and equally efficacious remedy for a litigant to prefer an appeal to the National Commission, aggrieved by an order of the State Commission.