M/S. Eminent Sea Foods Pvt.Ltd vs The Kerala State Industries … on 13 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 579 of 2009()


1. M/S. EMINENT SEA FOODS PVT.LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,

3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :13/03/2009

 O R D E R
     KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
               ----------------------------------------------
                       W.A. No.579 of 2009
               ----------------------------------------------
                    Dated 13th March, 2009.

                           J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The

challenge was on Ext.P1 judgment (sic-order) passed by the

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby

the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground

that the petitioner/complainant was not a consumer coming

under the purview of of the Consumer Protection Act and that

even assuming so, the complaint was barred by limitation.

Another ground taken in the writ petition is that a single member

of the State Commission is not competent to take decisions and

pass orders under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986. There are other contentions as well, on merits.

2. The learned Single Judge held that under Section

16(1B)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, a single member is also

competent, if duly authorised by the President. Other

contentions on merit are also urged. Be that as it may, we do not

think that this court, at this stage should go into all those

questions, since under Section 19 of the Act, the petitioner has an

WA NO.579/09 2

effective remedy before the National Commission. Therefore, we

make it clear that the judgment under appeal will not stand in the

way of the appellant pursuing its remedy before the National

Commission, on all available grounds. We also make it clear that

in the event of the petitioner thus approaching the National

Commission, the time taken by the petitioner for prosecuting the

writ petition and the writ appeal will be taken into consideration

while computing the period of limitation.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH &

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ

———————————————-

W.A. No.579 of 2009

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 13th March, 2009.