IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15627 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- INDIAN BANK, KARUMKULAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. L.THOBIAS, S/O.LOOKOSE, CHAVATHADI PURAYIDOM, PULLUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEYYATTINKARA BRANCH, NEYYATTINKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.15627 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th June,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Exhibits P3 and P6 orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum affirmed by the State Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent, essentially alleging deficiency of service qua the 4th respondent. But the order passed by the District Commission affirmed by the State Commission imposes a liability on the petitioner as well. 2. When it was pointed out to Sri.S.Easwaran, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a remedy available to the petitioner under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Ac, he submits out that subsequent events have brought into focus what could be termed as clearly fraudulent conduct on the part of the complainant. It is also pointed out that had these materials been available earlier, the decision taken by the District Forum W.P ( C) No.15627 of 2009 2 as affirmed by the State Commission would have been different. May be this is so, but there is nothing discernible from a reading of the statutory provisions which prevents the petitioner from bringing these materials to the notice of the National Commission. It is also not easy to presume that a High Power Commission Body like the National Commission would not look into materials unearthed subsequent to the order passed by the State Commission, if it clearly reflects fraudulent conduct on the part of the complainant, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In the result, the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternate remedy available under the Statute. To enable the petitioner to do so, the enforcement of Exhibit- P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. Further, since the petitioner has taken time to prosecute a remedy before this Court, it will only be appropriate that a liberal view in the matter of condoning the delay, if any, in preferring a revision against Exhibit-P6 order is taken. I am sure that the opinion expressed by this W.P ( C) No.15627 of 2009 3 Court in this regard will be taken note of by the Hon'ble National Commission. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.15627 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.15627 of 2009 5