IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37737 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- S.CHITHRA, W/O.RAVINDRAN, SAI KRISHNA, ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.DEVI STORES, MARKET ROAD, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, ATTINGAL BRANCH, ATTINGAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695101. BY ADV.SRI. S. EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 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