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
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
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