Farook.E.K vs Secretary on 11 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Farook.E.K vs Secretary on 11 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25926 of 2010(M)


1. FAROOK.E.K,M/S.KINETIC SYSTEM,FAROKE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY,CHOKLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

3. THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/10/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 25926 OF 2010 (M)
                  =====================

            Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2. Petitioner who was the opposite party in C.C.No.

194/2004 on the file of the CDRF, Kannur has filed this writ

petition challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the CDRF and also

Ext.P3 order in IA NO.88/2010 in Appeal No. 36/2010 passed by

the 3rd respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P1, complaint filed by

the 1st respondent was allowed against him. It is his case that his

counsel did not give him intimation regarding the disposal of the

case, as a result of which, he could file the appeal only with a

delay of 461 days. It is stated that by Ext.P3 order, the 3rd

respondent has rejected his application for condonation of delay

stating that the reason assigned is hardly sufficient to condone

the delay and that the petitioner also had a duty to ascertain the

progress of the case.

4. It is now submitted by both sides that out of the total

liability of Rs.2,09,650/- arising under Ext.P1 order of the CDRF,

WPC No. 25926/10
:2 :

petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.1.25 lakhs and

the said deposit is available with the CDRF and the State

commission. Thus the petitioner has deposited more than 50% of

the amount, which he will have to pay if ultimately Ext.P1 order is

sustained.

5. Having regard to the validity of Ext.P3 order rejecting

the prayer for condoning the delay is concerned, a reading of this

order shows that the 3rd respondent did not enter a finding that

the reason stated by the petitioner is factually incorrect. In the

absence of such a finding, I am unable to sustain Ext.P3.

Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the 3rd respondent to treat

the delay as condoned and consider Appeal No.36/10 filed by the

petitioner against Ext.P1 on merits and with notice to the parties.

The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate within 6 months of production of a copy of this judgment.

It will also be open to the petitioner to seek a stay of Ext.P1 by

making an appropriate application to the 3rd respondent.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *