- (1.) THE opposite party no.1 approached the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Barasat (hereafter the District Forum) with a complaint under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter the Act) arraying the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. On registration, the complaint was assigned DF Case No. 219 of 2003. THE complaint reveals that the opposite party no.1 purchased a tempo 3 wheeler minidoor pick-up van (hereafter the vehicle) from the opposite party no.2, a distributor of vehicles, on obtaining finance from the petitioner; that an agreement was executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner stipulating payment of a sum of Rs. 1,36,620/- by the opposite party no.1 in 22 monthly instalments commencing from October 27, 2002; that it had been settled that the petitioner would collect the monthly instalments from the opposite party no.1 through the opposite party no.2; that the opposite party no.1 had been paying monthly instalments through opposite party no.2 who had been issuing receipts in his favour; that the opposite party no.2 lastly received Rs. 30,420/- acknowledging the same on its pad on the assurance that proper receipt would be issued later on which, the opposite party no.1 being an innocent person believed; and that all on a sudden the petitioner took possession of the vehicle on or about March 6, 2003 on the ground of default in payment of instalments. Alleging that the services of the opposite party no.2 and the petitioner suffer from gross negligence and that there is deficiency in service on their part and further that the opposite party no.2 has adopted unfair trade-practice for which the opposite party no.1 had suffered loss of income as well as monthly agony and harassment, the opposite party no.1 in his complaint prayed for direction on the respondents in the complaint to jointly or severally make good loss of Rs.63,000/- suffered by him as well as to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. A further prayer was made for direction on the petitioner to hand over the vehicle to the opposite party no.1.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an application on March 5, 2004 before the District Forum. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable on the ground that the ambit and coverage of the Act does not extend to the petitioner and the opposite party no.1, having relationship of creditor and borrower. THE District Forum took up the aforesaid application for consideration. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the available materials, the District Forum recorded a finding that the complainant appears to be a consumer and there is prima facie material to proceed with the case against the opposite parties. THE application was thus rejected by order dated June 22, 2004. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an application for revision under Section 17 of the Act before the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the State Commission). A prayer was made to set aside the order passed by the District Forum. The application was heard on contest by the State Commission. By an order dated September 27, 2006, the State Commission rejected the revisional application, being devoid of any merit. This order of the State Commission is under challenge in the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, contended that the State Commission as well as the District Forum erred in exercising jurisdiction vested in them. The said fora, according to him, did not at all appreciate in the proper perspective that the relationship of debtor-creditor between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner is beyond the ambit and coverage of the Act. That apart, the agreement executed by and between the opposite party no.1 and the petitioner contained an arbitration clause and, therefore, the complaint before the District Forum was not maintainable. In support of his contention, two decisions of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the State Commission were relied on. He, accordingly, prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission and further orders to quash DF Case No.219 of 2003.
(3.) MR. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party no.1, contended that having regard to the allegations contained in the complaint, the cause of action for moving the District Forum cannot be segregated. The relief claimed is composite and is directed against both the opposite party no.2 distributor as well as the petitioner, the financer. The State Commission considered all aspects and opined that the questions that were raised by the petitioner are required to be looked into in depth and that refusal of the State Commission to interfere with the order of the District Forum in revision ought not to be tinkered with by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence. He also submitted that the petitioner has a remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereafter the National Commission) under Section 21 of the Act. Such remedy is an efficacious alternative remedy provided by the statute and therefore, there could be no reason for this Court to interfere since by reasons of the order impugned herein, the petitioner does not stand to suffer such degree of prejudice and inconvenience that interference at this stage would be imperative. The decisions of this Court reported in 2009 (2) CLJ (Cal) 685, 2009 (1) CLJ (Cal) 929 and 1995 (1) CLJ (Cal) 124 were relied on by him to urge the Court to dismiss the application for existence of alternative remedy.;