K T PALPANDIAN DIED Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MADRAS CITY CIVIL COURT BUILDINGS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition two Members of the Madras High Court Bar are the petitioners before this Court. The first petitioner having died second petitioner alone is prosecuting the writ petition. Though the petitioners had prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from prohibition proceeding with the complaint in O.P. No. 652 of 1992 on the file of the first respondent, on the ground that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has no application besides contended that in any event, the controversy between the petitioner and the contesting respondent cannot be the subject matter of adjudication before the first respondent as it interferes with the judicial pronouncement already rendered by the Division Bench of this Court under Article 226 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It was further contended that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is uncostitutional.

(2.) MR. V. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner took the Court through the judgment of the Division Bench where late KT. Palpandian appeared and argued the matter. The learned counsel also referred to the written submissions made by the said counsel before the Division Bench and contended that merely because the Division Bench had not referred to one or more of the contentions or had not chosen to sustain the contention advanced, the same cannot give rise to a cause of action to move a complaint before the Consumer Forum. Before the Division Bench as seen from the written submissions, many contentions have been advanced by late K.T. Palpandian, who had appeared for the second respondent herein and number of authorities he had cited in support of his contentions. However the Division Bench while following the later decision of the Apex Court, rejected the contentions decided the matter on merits and passed orders. Thereafter the complaint has been made by the second respondent before the first respondent-consumer Forum complaining deficiency in the service rendered by his counsel. M/s. K.T. Palpandian and MR. P. Rathinadurai, who appeared in the said appeal.

(3.) HOWEVER, it has to be pointed out that the question whether there is deficiency or not falls well within the jurisdiction of the first respondent-Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. This Court will not be justified in usurping the jurisdiction of the said Forum by examining the complaint on merits and render a finding in this writ petition. Much could be said against the second respondent who had moved the complaint, on the very averments set out in the complaint. Without contradiction, it could also be stated that the Division Bench decision has reached finality and this being a judicial pronouncement in respect of the legal submissions, which were considered by the Division Bench and which had given its deep consideration and rendered a judgment on the points, which Division Bench had thought it relevant to decide the issue. Merely because one or two aspects are not highlighted or not been pressed or not been focussed or not referred to specifically as the second respondent now sought to make out, it has to be pointed out that such a plea is legally not permissible. This observation is made only for the limited purpose of deciding this writ petition and the same shall not be taken as deciding the complaint itself, as any other view would amount to trenching into the jurisdiction of the first respondent-Consumer Forum. A caution has to be expressed and with necessary caution the first respondent has to approach the issue, in respect of judicial pronouncement of this Court. It is true such complaints may lead at times to unpleasant situation where leading Members of the Bar like Late K.T. Palpandian or others dragged and compelled to face an unpleasant situation to defend himself for no fault on his part or even for failure to successfully persuade the Bench to write an order. It is always the prerogative of the Bench to take a decision which is placed before it for rendition of justice or for adjudication and it is the Bench which records reasons in support of its conclusion and definitely the members cannot have any role except their assisting Court in discharge of its judicial decision.