IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32510 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SALINE @ JOSE SALINE THOMAS, M/S.INFOMAC SYSTEMS, JIJO BUILDING, OPP.CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SIBI KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN, PARTNER, M/S.INFOMAC SYSTEMS, JIJO BUILDING, OPP.CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.K.G.SAROJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM WAYANAD, KALPETTA-673 001. 3. AJAYAKUMAR.M.V., S/O.VASUDEVAN, MALAYIL VEEDU, AMBALAVAYAL, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 32510/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-4-2008 IN OP.4/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, WAYANAD. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2010 IN APPEAL NO.109/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/9/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN EA.36/2011 IN CC.4/2003. P4: COPY OF THE QUOTATION (RELEVANT PORTION) DATED 24/4/2002 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/11/2011 IN EA.NO.36/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32510 of 2011 K ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P1 is an order passed by the second respondent in O.P.No.4/2003 filed by the third respondent against the petitioners and the firm. By this order, the complaint was allowed with compensatory costs. Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission and by Ext.P2, the order was confirmed but, however, deleting the order for payment of compensation and costs. Despite the fact that Ext.P1 order got merged in Ext.P2, in the execution application filed by the applicant, petitioners filed Ext.P3 application, seeking a clarification of Ext.P2. In spite of all these, payment was not made and finally, by Ext.P5 order dated 19.11.2011, warrant of arrest has been ordered. It is thereupon this writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash Ext.P5 and for a direction to the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P3 application for clarification. W.P.(C) No.32510/2011 : 2 : 2. As already seen, Ext.P3 could not have been entertained for the reason that Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent has already merged into Ext.P2 order passed by the State Commission. Therefore, if no orders are passed on Ext.P3, no fault can be found on the part of the second respondent. 3. Exts.P1 and P2 having attained finality, the third respondent is entitled to the benefits of the said orders. Admittedly, these orders are still not complied with and if that be so, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the second respondent in issuing warrant of arrest. Writ petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/07/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge