1 CGHC010367562026 2026:CGHC:41832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1260 of 2026 1 - Ashok Sahu S/o Shri Bahalram Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Botka, Tehsil And Police Station Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) - 491331 (Ex- Agentof P A C L India Ltd) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - P A C L India Limited Through Its Chief Branch Manger, 7th Floor, Gopal Das Bhawan- 28, Barakhamba Road New Delhi – 110001 2 - P A C L India Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Add- Shaluja Building Raipur, Road, Ward No. 21 Kawardha- 491995 3 - Sitaram S/o Shri Jagat Ram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Botka Tehsil And Police Station Khamhariya, District- Bemetara (C.G.) -491331 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 25/09/2026 Heard. 1. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 07.08.2026 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bemetara (CG) in complaint Case No. DC/650/CC/27/2026 whereby an order has been SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.09.28 10:01:51 +0530 2 passed for grant of refund of amount deposited by the Respondent No. 3 along with accrued interest. The order was passed against the petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, though the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by filing an appeal, however, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India could not be ousted in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case in Civil Appeal No. 13301/2015 (Subrata Bhattacharya v. Securities and Exchange Board of India) decided on 06.10.2021. He would further submit that the petitioner is a poor person and he was only an agent of Respondent No. 1 and 2/ company yet the amount which deposited with the respondent No. 1 and 2 yet the liability has been fasten jointly and severally upon the petitioner also along with the Respondent No. 1 and 2. He has no nexus with the amount deposited by the respondent No. 3 as the amount was with the respondent No. 1 and 2 and not with the petitioner. The definition of consumer has not been properly considered by the learned District Commission, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Commission may be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 4. Present is a petition arising out of the order dated 07.08.2026 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bemetara was arising out of an complaint filed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 35 of the Act of 2019. The order passed by the District Commission on the application filed by the complainant under Section 3 35 of the Act of 2019, is appealable under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and thereafter, the second appeal was provided under Section 51 of the Act of 2019 before the National Commission. It is necessary to notice the provisions of Section 41 of the Act of 2019 which reads as under :- Section 41 appeal against order of district commission:- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed: Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period: Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80. 5. Since, the complaint has been filed by the Respondent No. 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bemetara, under Section 35 of the Act of 2019 and any order passed by the District Commission is appealable under Section 41 of the Act of 2019 before the State Commission, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition as the petitioner is having statutory alternative 4 forum to challenge the order passed by District Commission dated 07.08.2026. 6. The judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Bhattacharya (Supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on the facts, therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from that judgment. 7. Accordinly, in view of the availability of alternative statutory forum of appeal available to the petitioner, the present writ petition is not maintainable and hereby dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative statutory remedy available to him in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika