PRAKASH BARAN MISHRA Vs. ICICI LOMBORD GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question which arises at the outset, a preliminary objection being taken on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 as to the maintainability of the present revisional application before this Court in view of availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the National Commission, is, whether the provisions of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is an adequate remedy for the petitioner in the present context.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, challenging a final order passed by the State Commission in an appeal and, as such, no remedy is provided before the National Commission against such an order.

(3.) By placing reliance on a comparative study of Section 17(1)(b) and Section 21(b) of the Act of 1986, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it would be evident that both the said provisions are exactly the same. Placing reliance upon Section 17(1)(b) of the Act of 1986, it is argued that the said provision is restricted to interlocutory orders only, in view of an appeal lying against an order of a District Forum before the State Commission.