IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.25588 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S.SIVANTOS INDIA PVT LTD., FORMERLY SIEMENS HEARING INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD., UNIT NO.14, 7TH FLOOR, INNOVATOR INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK, BENGALURU – 560 066. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND FINANCE CONTROLLER.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT.VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K G KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. D. MAHENDRANATH, S/O. LATE. D. RAVINDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.86, KRISHNAMACHARI COMPOUND, K.C. ROAD, BALLARI – 583 103.
2. M/S. SHRAVANA HEARING AID CENTER, 13/21, 2ND CROSS, NEHRU COLONY, OPP:PARK, BALLARI – 583 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA V.N., ADV. FOR SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADV. FOR R1; SRI.SHOWRI H.R., ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.118/2017 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BELLARY, AS PER ANNEXURE - A EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF CONSIDERING THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT IN [2] BELOW AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt.Veena J. Kamath, learned counsel for Sri.K.G.Kamath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Rakshitha V.N, learned counsel for Sri.K.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.Showri.H.R, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the proceedings pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary. The petitioner also seeks for a direction to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary to consider the objections of the petitioner to the application for condonation of delay filed by respondent No.1 under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to consider the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint by a speaking order.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) , in which the petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 was arrayed as respondent No.2 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 04.08.2017. The petitioner filed vakalath before the Consumer Forum on 18.08.2017. Thereupon, the proceedings were adjourned to 28.08.2017. On 28.08.2017, the matter was adjourned for filing written statement and was fixed for 08.09.2017. On 08.09.2017, the Consumer Forum adjourned the matter for reporting settlement and fixed the proceedings for 09.10.2017. On 09.10.2017, Consumer Forum held that since the petitioner had not filed written statement, therefore, the proceedings were fixed for recording evidence on 12.10.2017. On 12.10.2017, the petitioner filed two sets of preliminary objections inter alia on the ground that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine as the same is barred by limitation and secondly, the objections were raised to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint. The matter was fixed for recording evidence on 24.10.2017 and on 24.10.2017, the matter was adjourned to 04.11.2017.
4. On 04.11.2017, the petitioner filed a memo requesting the Forum not to proceed with recording the evidence and to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner with regard to condonation of delay, jurisdiction as well as maintainability of the complaint.
5. The matter was thereafter, posted to 09.11.2017. On 09.11.2017, the petitioner filed written statement along with a copy of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. B.S.AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES’, AIR 2009 SC 2210 and made a request before the forum to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner. However, the case was adjourned to 23.11.2017 for hearing. Thereafter, on 28.02.2018, the case was again fixed for recording of evidence. The petitioner thereafter, in the proceedings filed three applications under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure on 17.05.2018 requesting the Consumer Forum to pass orders on the application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 24A of the Act as well as to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability of the compliant. However, the Consumer Forum by order dated 21.05.2018, directed that the petitioner’s interlocutory applications shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the petition. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings which has been initiated by the forum is in violation of the procedure prescribed under Sections 13 and 24A of the Act. It is further submitted that the Forum before proceeding further with the matter ought to have dealt with the question of condonation of delay and should have decided the issue with regard to maintainability of the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the action of the forum in deferring the decision on the maintainability of the complaint is justified.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has admittedly filed an objection on 12.10.2017 inter alia on the ground that the proceedings before the forum are not maintainable as the complaint is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 24A of the Act and the forum does not have jurisdiction and the complaint filed before it is not maintainable. However, instead of deciding the objection raised by the petitioner, the consumer forum has proceeded further with the complaint. In the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary to decide the objection preferred by the petitioner on 12.10.2017 before proceeding further with the matter by a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Ordered accordingly.
9. Needless to state that petitioner, if so advised, shall be at liberty to file such interlocutory application and in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any order which may be passed against him by the forum, he shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedy of appeal under Section 15 of the Act.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-