Instead of revision ptition you should have preferred an appeal to the National consumer Forum.. Then straight away you' d have had a chance to proceed to Supeme court by way of an appeal orFiling an slp through obtaining leave to appeal. from High court. You've only two options before you. Either filing an appeal before the same Ntional consumerr forum Or filing a writ petition in High Court.. In DR. Prasad vs.Sumitra Devi The JharKhand High court held as follows:
territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls.
92. We may add here that under the existing system, direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations, this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
16. In the light of Catena of decisions of the Supreme Court including L. Chandra's case (Supra) it can safely be concluded that there is no bar entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order passed by the National Commission exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act.
17. The second and the last question that falls for consideration is as to whether this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunals.
18. In the present case it appears that the applicant being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum went in appeal before the State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the applicant against the order of State Commission went to National Commission in Page 1584 Revision under Section 21(b) instead of appeal under Section 21(a)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where his revision application hay been rejected. Thus the intension of legislature is very clear that where there is ample opportunities for the aggrieved person to redress their grievances on every stages there should be extra ordinary situation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Final order of National Commission in revision may be questioned in High Court under Article 226 only to save the miscarriage of justice when there is error flagrant in the impugned order. Further the intension of the legislature is to give speedy and effective relief. Therefore, in the present case the said intension will be defeated if proceeding are elongated by entertaining the application under Article 226 of the Constitution without any substantive reasons for invoking the writ jurisdiction of High Court in view of the fact that a number of forum available under the Act have already been exhausted by the applicant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I do not find any compelling circumstances or imperative element or glaring infirmity in the impugned order passed by the National Commission so as to require the interference by the High Court.
19. Apart from this the Act is dedicated, as its preamble shows to provide for better protection of the interest of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of several authorities for settlement of consumer disputes and for other connected matters. The purpose of enacting the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers with complaints against defective goods and deficient services and unfair & restrictive trade practices and for that a quasi-judicial machinery has been sought to be set up at the District, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies are required to observe the principle of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance with the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.
20. Thus, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a complete statute where various stages/forums are available for the redressal of the grievances by way of appeal, revision to the parties right from District Forum to State Commission to National Commission and to the Supreme Court. Thus, adequate legal remedies are available to the parties under the Act to make it more effective and purposeful. Thus the Act provides for an alternative system of "Consumer Justice" by summary trial. Having due regard to the aforesaid schemes of the Act and careful examination the order under challenge, I hold that it is not a proper case to interfere with and to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction in absence of violation principles of natural justice, infringement of fundamental rights, or patent error of law in the impugned order.
If you appreciate this answer please click the thnak you button on this forum.