IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 9202 of 2009(U) ------------------------- (EP NO.59/1998 IN OP 154/1996) PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAVUNNI EZHUTHASSAN, LEKSHMY NIVAS, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIVADASAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, WEST ERATTA HOUSE, THEKKETHARA, AYALUR, NENMARA, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9202/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN RP 2277/99 DT 8.6.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION DT 5.7.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT 1.1.09. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DT 13.1.09. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 27.2.09. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9202 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. Petitioner was the respondent in OP NO.154/96 filed by the respondent herein before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad. The case was one of medical negligence. The CDRF disposed of the complaint directing the petitioner to pay an amount of `2,00,000/- with interest as compensation. 3. Appeal filed before the State Commission was rejected and thereafter a revision was filed before the National Commission. In that revision, stay was granted on condition that the petitioner remits `75,000. Accordingly deposit was made. Subsequently, National Commission heard the parties and dismissed the revision. 4. In view of the above, the respondent filed Execution Petition before the CDRF, Palakkad as EP 59/98. In that execution proceedings, petitioner paid `1.25 lakhs to the respondent. However, on the ground that the balance `75,000 was not paid, WPC No.9202/09 :2 : Ext.P5 order was issued by the CDRF as per which warrant was issued. It was at that stage this writ petition was filed. 5. Admittedly, `75,000 deposited by the petitioner in compliance with the condition imposed by the National Commission in RP No.2277/99 is still lying in deposit. This amount legitimately belongs to the respondent and the respondent is entitled to apply and get the amount released in its favour and to this, petitioner also has no objection. Therefore, once that right of the respondent is recognised, there is no reason to keep the warrant issued by Ext.P5 order alive. 6. In that view, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) That the petitioner also agrees that it will be open to the respondent to apply to the National Commission seeking release of `75,000 deposited by the petitioner in RP No.2277/99, along with interest, if any, thereon. (2) In view of the above, Ext.P5 order issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner will stand set aside. WPC No.9202/09 :3 : (3) The claim of the respondent for payment of interest as ordered by the CDRF, Palakkad is left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp