IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 1698 of 2008(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22011/2008 Dated 22/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD.) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 123, ANGAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI.VENUGOPALAN P.T., LEGAL CONSULTANT, M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., SREEPADAM BUILDING, CHEROOTY ROAD, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIDDEEK.K., S/O.C.MOHAMMED, KOLIKATTA HOUSE, CHERKALA, CHENGALA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1698 of 2008-E ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22011/2008 dated 22.7.2008. 2. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed, that, the petitioner has got an alternative remedy against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on a petition filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Whether the petitioner/appellant has got alternative remedy before any other forum under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act need not be decided in this appeal. It is suffice to observe that the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Fourm is in accordance with the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs.Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could have disposed of the writ petition mainly on the ground that the observations made by the W.A.No.1698/2008 -2- District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was in consonance with the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. {2000 (5) SCC 294}. 4. In view of the above, deleting that portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the petitioner to file revision/appeal before the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act, we reject this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS