IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25926 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- FAROOK.E.K,M/S.KINETIC SYSTEM,FAROKE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY,CHOKLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOKLI PO,KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN 670 672. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR. 3. THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN FOR R1 SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI FOR R1 SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY FOR R1 SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25926/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSEDBY THE CO NSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,KANNUR IN C.C.NO.194/2004. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the DELAY CONDONTION PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.88/2010 OF THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp 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