IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19403 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BHARATHKESHAMAM,REP.BY CHAIRMAN, PM THOMAS,BHARATHKESHAMAM,COLLEGE ROAD, EAST FORT,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR,REP.BY ITS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT 680003. 2. WILLY.MN.A,S/O.ANTONY,MOOKAN HOUSE, AMBILY,BARLIKULAM ROAD,THRIKKAVU, PO PONNANI, MALAPPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505. R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE R2 BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA, SRI.ARUN BASIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 19470 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19403/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN CC. 963/2010 DTD. 15.3.10. P2:- COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 6.8.10 IN EA. 80/10 ISSUED BY CDRF. P3:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 27 DT. NIL. P4:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 24.1.11 IN EA. 80/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos. 19403 & 19470 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Heard both the sides. These writ petitions arise from an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur on the complaints filed by 2nd respondent in these cases who are husband and wife. 2. It appears that the aforesaid respondents subscribed two kuries run by the petitioner in these cases. That was the subject matter of C.C.Nos.963/06 and 964/06 on the file of the first respondent. Cases were disposed of by Ext.P1 order allowing the complaints and directing that on the complainants furnishing sufficient security within two months, the petitioner shall pay Rs.1 lakh each to the complainants. According to the petitioner without furnishing the security as ordered by the CDRF, the respondents filed execution petitions and without considering objections filed by the petitioner, CDRF issued W.P.(C) Nos. 19403 & 19470 OF 2011 :2 : Ext.P2 show cause notice for issuing warrant of arrest. It was thereupon the writ petitions were filed. 3. Petitioners contend that it was because the complainants failed to furnish security as ordered by the CDRF that they could not release the amount as ordered by the CDRF. On the other hand the complainants contend that they had offered adequate security by way of personal surety of one Senior Branch Manager of a Scheduled Bank and of a teacher of a Government School and that without any reason the security was declined to be accepted by the petitioner. It is stated that it was therefore that they had to file the execution petitions resulting in the impugned proceedings of the CDRF. 4. Admittedly the orders passed by the CDRF have become final and if the complainants furnish adequate security, the petitioner is obliged to release the amount as ordered by the CDRF. The question is about the nature of the security offered by the petitioner. In my view this is an issue which could be resolved by the CDRF itself, which is seized of the execution petitions filed by the complainants. W.P.(C) Nos. 19403 & 19470 OF 2011 :3 : 5. Therefore I dispose of the writ petitions directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment the CDRF will hear the parties concerned, determine the nature of security to be furnished by the complainants. Once order is passed in that behalf and security is furnished by the complainants, the petitioner shall release the amount as ordered by the CDRF as per Ext.P1 proceedings in these cases. It is directed that until the aforesaid process is completed, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 for the issuance of warrant shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-