THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 27933 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) By this writ petition, the petitioner questions the order dated 17.02.2003 passed in Consumer Dispute No. 1062 of 2002 by the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the 3rd respondent, with interest at 24% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. from 10.02.2002 till realization, and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. As is evident from the impugned order, the 3rd respondent herein filed the above complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Visakhapatnam, seeking refund of Rs.20,000/- deposited by her with the petitioner company with subsequent interest and for compensation and costs as well. As the notice sent to the petitioner on the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent, returned with an endorsement ‘left’, notice by way of paper publication was taken out. Even after publication of notice, the petitioner did not choose to appear and contest the case. As such, the Forum, having considered the stand of the 3rd respondent and the document filed by her, passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.20,000/- to the 3rd respondent, with interest at 24% per annum from the date of maturity i.e. from 10.02.2002 till realization, and also to pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The impugned order was passed way back on 17.03.2003, against which the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal to the State Commission. The petitioner, however, for the reasons best known to him, did not avail the statutory remedy of appeal and filed the present writ petition after lapse of eight years of passing of the impugned order. We see no grounds to entertain the present writ petition, which is filed bypassing the statutory remedy of appeal available as against the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA, J _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J 13th October, 2011 IBL