HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31663 OF 2010 Between: M/s Monappa Nagappa basude, Registered firm represented by its Partner, Ambadas Basude ………….Petitioner AND The State Bank of India, Narayanpet Branch represented by its Branch Manager, Narayanpet Town and Mandal and two others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Challenging the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in F.A.No. 1636 of 2010, the present Writ Petition is filed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed a Complaint in CC No. 39 of 2008 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Mohaboobnagar under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of service committed by the first respondent-Bank and that complaint was allowed and the Bank was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,64, 700/- together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 18.11.2007 till date of payment and Rs. 500/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent-Bank filed an appeal viz., F.A.No. 1636 of 2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and that appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC No. 39 of 2008 holding that the order is not sustainable in the absence of deficiency of service. The relevant portion reads as under: “In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC 39/2008 holding at as not sustainable in the absence of deficiency in service. However, the respondent/complainant is not precluded from filing Civil Suit before the competent court by impleading all the proper and necessary parties for entitlement of the relief and the complainant is at liberty to seek exclusion of time spent before the Civil Court by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There is no order as to costs. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount that was deposited at the time of obtaining Stay.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is deficiency of service and he brought to our notice Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which reads as under: “(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;” On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submits that against an order of A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, there is an alternative remedy available to the National Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. For ready reference Section 21 reads as under: “Section 21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission Shall have jurisdiction – (a) to entertain,-- (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceed rupees (twenty lakhs’) and (ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has filed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise or its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” As the petitioner is having an alternative remedy under Section 21 of the Act, without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to avail alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the National Forum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 21.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.