IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 579 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.18789/2008 Dated 28/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------- M/S. EMINENT SEA FOODS PVT.LTD., PLOT NO.9, COCHIN FISHERIES HARBOUR, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAJ(RTD.) C.J.THOMAS, AGED 76, YOHANNAN VARGHESE, RESIDING AT ANSU VILLA, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KESTEN ROAD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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.