IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37737 of 2010(N)
1. S.CHITHRA, W/O.RAVINDRAN, SAI KRISHNA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No. 37737 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 20th January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Heard both sides.
2. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4,
the order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission in I.A No. 369/2010 in First Appeal
161/2010. This order was passed on Ext.P3 application
made by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 309
days in filing the appeal. Consequently, by Ext.P5, the
appeal itself was dismissed.
2. A reading of the affidavit shows that the
petitioner herein was the complainant before the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram
for realising an amount of Rs. 3,63,523/- from the
respondent which is alleged to have illegally recovered
from the petitioner. It is stated that on the dismissal of the
complaint, petitioner entrusted the case bundle to one
Rajasenan, Advocate of Thiruvananthapuram for preferring
an appeal. Subsequently she came to know that lawyer
committed suicide and that the appeal was not preferred.
W.P (C) No. 37737 of 2010
2
It is stated that in the process she lost the case bundle
and therefore certified copy was obtained afresh and
thereafter the appeal was filed with a delay of 309 days.
3. A reading of Ext.P4 order passed by the
Commission shows that on more than one occasion, there
was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is
stated that on the materials available, the commission was
not satisfied with the genuineness of the reasons projected
for seeking condonation of delay.
4. Having considered the matter in its entirety, I
feel that the commission ought to have condoned the delay.
It is an admitted fact that the lawyer to whom the
petitioner is stated to have entrusted the case bundle had
committed suicide. If that fact is accepted, it probabilise
the case pleaded by the petitioner. Once the above case
pleaded by the petitioner found to be a probable one, in my
view, it eminently is a fit case for condoning the delay.
5. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P4 order passed by the
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
dismissing the application made by the petitioner for
W.P (C) No. 37737 of 2010
3
condonation of delay. Consequently Ext.P5 order dismissing
the appeal itself as barred by limitation has to be set aside
and I do so.
6. The writ petition will stand disposed of directing
that the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission will entertain appeal No. 161/201 filed by the
petitioner, on merits, with notice to the parties and pass
orders as as expeditiously as possible.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/
P.A to Judge
W.P (C) No. 37737 of 2010
4