ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE Vs. M G BALASUBRAMANIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order the warrant of attachment dated 22.2.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur in E.A.No.6 of 2011 in C.C.No.47 of 2008 and the entire proceedings in E.A.No.6 of 2011, this civil revision petition is filed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, who would echo the cri de couer of his client that holes-boles attachment order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Perambalur, so as to attach the properties of the revision petitioner, who was not at all added eo-nominee a party in C.C.No.47 of 2008, even though he was added eo-nominee a respondent in the E.A.No.6 of 2011. The revision petitioner also was not heard and thereby the District Forum violated the principle of audi alteram partem.

(3.) A mere perusal of those excerpts including the whole judgments would amply make the point clear that the Consumer Protection Act itself provides for filing revision or appeal, as the case may be, before the specially constituted forum concerned under the said Act and get redressed of the grievances by the aggrieved party; while so, the invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved person as against the orders of the District/State Consumer Redressal Commission, would not be tenable.