IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18575 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSETS FINANCE LTD, REG.OFFICE AT COCHIN DENTAL CARE BUILDING,KOBARA, MARKET ROAD COCHIN,REPRESENTED BY LEGAL OFFICER BABY SUJATHA,D/O.M.R.VALSALAN,SAI SOORAJ,CUSTOMS COLONY HOUSE NO:25,THAMARASSERY ROAD,POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,KOLLAM. 2. ASANARUKUNJU,S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, SALIM QUARTERS,TAZHAMEL,ANCHAL,KOLLAM. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 38809 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18575 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE HYPOTHECATION AGREEMENT DATED 27.8.2005 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN STATUS REPORT DATED 6.7.11 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.5.2011 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J .......................................... W.P.(C)s.18575/2011 & 38809/2010 .......................................... Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT These are the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner challenging the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, rejecting their plea that in view of the arbitrary agreement between the parties, the complaint is not maintainable. 2. In my view, if such an order has been passed, the remedy of the aggrieved is to file an appeal before the State Commission in terms of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, rather than invoking any extraordinary jurisdiction of this Curt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed. But it is directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days from today, the State Commission will entertain the said appeal and deal with the same on merits. 4. In W.P.(C).38809/2010 Ext.P7 order, requiring restoration W.P.(C)s.18575/2011 & 38809/2010 2 of the vehicle is also under challenge. Having regard to the fact that the said order has been stayed by this Court, it is directed that until the appeal is filed as above and the interlocutory application of the petitioner is considered, the said interim order of stay will remain in force. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs