AVINASH KANKANI Vs. NEW KENILWORTH HOTEL PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed assailing order no.13 dated 20th May, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble members of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal (shortly to be called on hereafter only as the State Commission) in a complaint case CC/112/2013 (Avinash Kankani & Ors. Vs. New Kenilworth Hotel Private Limited, shortly to be called on hereinafter only as the O.P) where, the State Commission, entertaining an application being MA 964 of 2015 filed by the O.P questioning maintainability of the said complaint case before the State Commission on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint with liberty to file the same before the appropriate forum.

(2.) Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that once the complaint case was admitted by the State Commission, registered it, pleadings were complete, as a result of filing of written version by the O.P evidence on affidavit was filed by the petitioner, the State Commission thereafter without adjudication ought not to have dismissed on lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Submitted further that every such orders passed by the State Commission since after registration of the complaint till before filing of application being MA 964/2015 being final order under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, shortly to be called on hereafter only as the Act, so far as the respective stages were concerned, and, there being no appeal, preferred by the opposite party against either of those final orders, then only recourse was opened before the State Commission to adjudicate the complaint case on merit instead of dismissing the complaint with liberty to file before the appropriate forum. Mr. Chatterjee relied upon the case of Charan Sing Vs. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. decided by three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 668. Submitted thereby to allow the revisional application setting aside the order of the State Commission.

(3.) Mr. Roy, learned Counsel for the O.P. inviting attention to Sections 19 and 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 per contra submitted that there having efficacious remedy in the Act, and since such special statute is self-contained with the steps to be adopted in any eventuality, the High Court should not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the order impugned passed by the State Commission upon hearing both sides, since only remedy of the petition was to prefer appeal before the National Commission, if aggrieved by the impugned order. Mr. Roy thereby relied on two following decisions:-