- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 31701 OF 2025 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. A ANITHA REDDY WIFE OF U YESHVARDHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.36, LAKE SHORE HOMES, KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 35 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER U YESHWARDHAN REDDY 2. M. PALLAVI REDDY WIFE OF RAJENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 406, TULIP BLOCK, REDWOOD APARTMENTS, HARALUR ROAD, OPP SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 102 3. SUMA B.N WIFE OF R. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 162, CKB LAYOUT, BEHIND DENTAL COLLEGE, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI COLONY, BANGALORE- 560 037 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY SHANKAR RAO., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. VIKARAM M S/O P MUNIRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.49. SATHVAMURTHY ROAD. RK MOTORS, RAMASWAMY PALYA, MAMITHI SEVATIAGEL BANGALORE 560033 2. M/S VIVANSAA BAALSAM, PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE, AT NO.88, 1ST FLOOR, 17TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, IV SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE- 560 034 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SWAPNIL AGRAWAL. 3. M/S YES BANK LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE AT BUILDING, NO.27, HAL 3RD STAGE, 80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE-560075. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE STATE COMMISSIONER DATED 29.08.2025 IN SC/29/FA/841/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A., AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No.SC/29/FA/841/2025 preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 30.06.2025 in Consumer Case No.225 and 2022 instituted by the respondents before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru. The District Commission in its order dated 30.06.2025 at Annexure-E, has allowed the complaint of the respondents in part and held the petitioners jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.24,49,660/- along with the accrued interest. The petitioners have also been directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was paid by the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and further, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded as compensation towards - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025 suffering for deficiency in service and to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, pain and suffering along with Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission dated 30.06.2055, the petitioners filed appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide interim order dated 29.08.2025 observed that unless statutory deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the District Commission was not paid, the question of considering the application for stay would not arise and therefore, the petitioners were directed to deposit 50% of the amount as awarded by the District Commission by 10.11.2025. 3. Instead of depositing the said sum, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is complete code in itself. It provides remedy for filing a complaint, appeal, revision, etc., against an order passed by the State Commission on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44533-DB WP No. 31701 of 2025 appeal, Section 58(1)(b) of the Act prescribes the statutory remedy of filing the revision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the State Commission, they should have filed a revision as provided under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, instead of filing a writ petition before this Court. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy to the petitioners under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, however, without costs. If the petitioner deposits 50% of the amount awarded by the District Commission vide order dated 30.06.2025 by 20.11.2025, the State Commission should consider the application filed by the petitioners for interim protection. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15