IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 29827 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (SIB), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LATHA.K., ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, FORMER CHIEF MANAGER OF S.B.T., KUNNAMKULAM BRANCH WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MODEL PLASTICS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.18, MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KANIYAMBAL, KUNNAMKULAM, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN VINU P.GEORGE. ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN FOR R1 SMT.SUSAL A. CHINNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS EXTS: EXT.P1:- COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THRISSUR AS C.C.162/06 EXT.P2:- COPY OF OBJECTION DT.24.8.2006 FILED BY PETITIONERS TO EXT.P1 COMPLAINT EXT.P3:- COPY OF ORDER OF CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TRICHUR DTD.12.5.2008 IN C.C.162/06 EXT.P4:- COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD.2.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P5:- COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.23.6.2009 IN APPEAL NO.113/2008 ON THE FILE OF KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF LETTER DTD.18.5.2005 ISSUED BY ASST.GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29827 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners challenge an order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The respondent takes a contention that petitioners' remedy lies in filing a revision before the National Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it is not an efficacious remedy. I am not satisfied that it is not an efficacious remedy in view of the fact that the National Commission is an independent judicial authority headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. In the above circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the impugned order before the National Commission properly, this writ petition is dismissed. To enable the petitioners to file a revision before the National Commission and to seek interim orders, the stay granted by this court would continue to be in force for a period of two months. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE cms