THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.34097 of 2011 Dated:27.12.2011 Between: P.R.S.S.Sharma, And another. …Petitioners and State Consumer Redressal Forum, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION No.34097 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The writ petition is filed against the order dated 07.08.2011 in F.A.No.276 of 2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. By the said order the learned Commission allowed the First Appeal against C.C.No.13 of 2010 passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy. The second respondent herein filed a complaint before the District Forum for a direction to the petitioners herein for payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the dishonoured cheque amount issued by the first petitioner, for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses, and Rs.20,000/- for damages. He alleged that the petitioners, who are husband and wife, conducted chits; they issued three cheques towards their liability for the prize money in respect of two chits; on presentation to the banker, the cheques were returned with endorsements “stop payment” necessitating the initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The petitioners did not contest the complaint. The District Forum, however, dismissed the complaint holding that the second respondent failed to prove the agreement between the parties. This he assailed before the State Commission. By impugned order, the same was allowed directing the petitioners herein to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 10% per annum towards the chit instalments, together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioners. He would contend that admittedly the second respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, and therefore he could not have simultaneously approached the District Consumer Forum. He would also challenge the order of the State Commission on the ground that the exercise of jurisdiction simultaneously is illegal. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act), is intended to deal with all matters for settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith. The Act creates Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums at the district level, state level and national level. The orders passed by the District Forum are appellable under Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act before the State Commission. The orders passed by the State Commission are further appellable under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act before the National Commission constituted under Section 9(c) of the Act. The remedy under Section 21(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, in our opinion, is an effective alternative remedy which cannot be bypassed by the petitioners. No doubt, the petitioners raised the question of jurisdiction on the plea that the second respondent simultaneously initiated proceedings against the petitioners. But, this itself cannot be a ground for ignoring the alternative remedy. It is now settled that even the question of jurisdiction can always be raised before the statutory appellate authority and the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the only method. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. In the result, for the above reasons, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the National Commission, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 27.12.2011 vs