HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29176 OF 2010 Between: Sri Palla Sunitha W/o late Srinivas Aged about 37 years ………….Petitioner AND A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, represented by its Registrar Khairatabad, Hyderabad and three others ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to the second respondent to send the vakalat and complaint in CC No. 57 of 2008 along with the disputed document dated 12.2.2007 for comparison of signatures of the petitioner or any document pertaining to the admitted signatures of her to the handwriting expert by modifying the orders of the first respondent in R.P.No. 15 of 2009 dated 29.9.2009. Petitioner herein filed a complaint viz., CC No. 57 of 2008 before the District Consumer Forum, Warangal seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 7,65,000/- under the policy bearing No. 686907240 with accrued bonus together with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the recovery of entire amount. She also filed I.A.No. 49 of 2009 in C.C.No. 57 of 2008 under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w 151 CPC praying to send the document filed by the respondent dated 12.2.2007 along with other documents to Finger Prints Expert for comparison of the signatures of the complainant. That I.A was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision viz., RP No. 15 of 2009 before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad and the same was allowed by the State Forum and the relevant portion reads as under: “Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Revision Petition to offer to produce an undisputed document containing her signature which is essentially contemporaneous to the disputed document. In these circumstances, even while allowing the Revision petition and consequently setting aside the order the District Forum, we direct the District Forum to permit the Revision Petitioner/complainant to resort to the hand writing expert subject however to a condition that the complainant produces the comparable signature contained in an in-disputed document which is essentially contemporaneous i.e., of the year 2007 as the disputed document belongs to of the same year. With this observation, the Revision Petition is allowed.” Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that though the first respondent directed the second respondent to send the document pertaining to 2007 for comparison of the signature of the petitioner to the handwriting expert, there are no documents which contain her signature during the year 2007, and seeks a direction to the second respondent to send the vakalat and the complaint of the petitioner along with disputed document to the handwriting expert, as the first respondent has no power to review the order dated 29.9.2009. 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. 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: 1.12.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.