- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 7308 OF 2024 (GM-CON) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7106 OF 2024 (GM-CON) IN WP No. 7308/2024 BETWEEN: 1. JAYA S. GANDHI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O SRI. SELVARAJ, AREA SALES MAANGER FOR BENGALURU OTIC HEARING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD (SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) PLOT 85, SAI SANGAM, 706/707, SECTOR 15, CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 614. 2. AMOL WADEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. SRI. VIJAY, SALES MANAGER OTIC HEARING SOLUTIONS PVT LTD (SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY) PLOT NO 85, SAI SANGAM, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 706/707, SECTOR 15 CBD, BELPARU, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 614. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: DARSHINI B.K. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O NOT KNOWN RESIDINT AT NO 422 GROUND FLOOR 1ST CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE R2 IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED:15.03.2024) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE OF 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING APPEAL No.57/2024 INSTITUTED BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE AND ISSUE A WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.01.2024 RENDERED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE IN APPEAL No.57/2024 (ANNEXURE- A) AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 IN WP NO. 7106/2024 BETWEEN: ANAKHI GHOSH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O BIPLAB GHOSH, AUDIOLOGIST, HEAD OF AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH THERAPY DEPARTMENT, SAGA HOSPITAL AUDIO DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, SHAVIGE MALLESHWARA HILL, DSI BANASHANKARI, BEHIND DSI CAMPUS, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 078. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: DARSHINI B.K., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, W/O 'NOT KNOWN', NO 422, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.03.2024, R2 & R3 ARE DELETED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING APPEAL NO.56/2024, INSTITUTED BEFORE THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22/01/2024 RENDERED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE, IN APPEAL NO.56/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Case No.A/57/2024. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order passed in complaint No.239/2023 by the Bangalore Urban III Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal District Commission ('District Consumer Commission' for short). Vide the order passed by the District Commission, the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and financial hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses to the petitioner. 2. The District Consumer Commission after admission of the complaint had issued notice to the appellants and directed them to appear on 05.10.2023. The appellants had not appear before the District Consumer Commission and therefore, the District Consumer Commission had placed them ex-parte. 3. The complainant was directed to file the affidavit of evidence and consequently in the month of October itself the District Consumer Commission passed the order on complaint directing the appellants to pay the amount so determined in the award. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 4. The order passed by the District Consumer Commission came to be challenged by filing an appeal in No.A/57/2024 before the State Commission. 5. The State Commission has taken note of the contention of the petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, time limit of 30 days with another 15 days has been prescribed for contesting the matter and to file objections. But in the in the present case, the District Consumer Commission passed an order of ex-parte. The State Commission has considered that the timeline as prescribed Under Section 38(2), would be applicable where on notice, the parties have put up their appearance, but not where the opposite parties have placed ex-parte. 6. Against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, the petitioner has remedy of filing the revision before the National Commission. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 Instead of taking recourse to the statutory remedy of revision, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued and place reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.O.K.Devaki and Another Vs. M/s Standard Chartered Bank and Another1, to submit that inspite of the remedy of revise being available to him, this Court should entertain the writ petition. 7. We have perused the said judgment. The judgment was passed on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as the case was admitted and the pleadings were exchanged. Therefore, considering the judgments of Supreme Court and other cases, this Court held that once the matter has been admitted and it has remained pending for quite some time, the petitioner should not be relegated on the 1 ILR 2008 KAR 3395 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 ground of availability of the alternate remedy to the National Commission. 8. As we have noted that the matter has not been admitted, we also note that the Consumer Protection Act is a complete Court in itself and therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition against order passed by the State Commission which is impugned in the present writ petition. 9. We therefore, dispose of these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy by filing revision, if he is so advised before the National Commission against the order passed by the State Commission. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, the petitioner may file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay in approaching the National Commission for pendency of the writ petition under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19003-DB WP No. 7308 of 2024 C/W WP No. 7106 of 2024 10. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, we dispose of the writ petitions. The money deposited in pursuance to the interim order dated 22.03.2024 should be remitted to the District Consumer Commission. The District Consumer Commission shall not disburse the said amount till a period of four months or subject to an earlier order passed by the National Commission. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26 ct-vn