Quashed

Branch Manager v. Lali Lawrence

Kerala HC29 Nov 2016WP(C)/14325/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing deposit of a fixed deposit amount. Court noted the order was non-speaking and petitioner was denied hearing, quashing the order and directing commission to decide the application within a month after giving hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order of the State Commission directing deposit of Rs.24 lakhs is quashed; commission directed to decide application within one month after hearing.

Branch Manager Vs Lali Lawrence — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 14325 of 2016 (M)

¶6

IA 1545/2015 IN APPEAL NO 929/2015 KERALA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ----------------

¶7

PETITIONER/SECOND RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.929/2015:

¶8

BRANCH MANAGER, MADAKKIMALA SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, VAZAVATTA BRANCH, WAYANAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT AND FIRST RESPONDENT:

¶11

1. LALI LAWRENCE, WIFE OF LAWRENCE, D/O.LATE ANNAMMA, MANKOMB, AMBALAVAYAL, NENMENI VIKKAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD- 673 592.

¶12

2. P.V.PAULOSE @ BABY,

¶13

SON OF VARGHESE, PALETH MOLAYIL HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O. AND VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD- 673 592.

¶14

3. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

WP(C).No. 14325 of 2016 (M)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------P1 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.929/2015 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/3/2016 OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

R1(A)	COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.12.2015 IN APPEAL NO 929 OF 2015.
R1(B)	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM WITH COPY MARKED TO THE PETITIONER.
R1(C)	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 2.12.2015.
R1(D)	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE FIST RESPONDENT DATED 4.12.2015.
R1(E)	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 8.12.2015.
R1(F)	COPY OF THE DISSENTING ORDER IN CC NO 175 OF 2013.
R1(G)	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2015.
	/TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶23

K.V.

¶24

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.14325 of 2016

¶26

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Heard respective counsel and perused the documents on record.

¶29

Petitioner is the 2^nd respondent in Appeal No.929/2015 pending before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram. The said appeal is filed by the 1^st respondent challenging the order passed by the District Forum, Kalpetta directing the petitioner bank to release the fixed deposit lying with it to the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the appeal filed, a warrant was issued directing the petitioner to be present before the State Commission. Petitioner entered appearance and the warrant was recalled, however, petitioner was directed to remit the entire amount of Rs.24,00,000/- in accordance with the fixed deposit remaining with the

¶30

W.P.(C). No.14325 of 2016

¶31

¶32

petitioner bank, as per Ext.P3 order. The reason assigned by the 1^st respondent is that, before any orders are passed on the appeal, the amount directed by the Consumer Disputes Forum was released by the petitioner bank to the 2^nd respondent. Even the petitioner was put to notice that, 1^st respondent is preferring an appeal before the State Commission and with respect to the stay granted, however, the same was not taken into consideration and amounts were released.

¶33

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there

¶34

was a direction by the District Forum, Kalpetta to release the fixed deposit amount to the 2^nd respondent within a period of one month and in order to avoid other consequences in the execution proceedings, the said amount was released and there was no illegality on the part of the petitioner in releasing the fixed deposit amount to the 2^nd respondent. Any how, same is a subject matter to be considered by the Consumer Commission. Learned counsel for 1^st respondent submitted that a Succession O.P. is pending by and between

¶35

W.P.(C). No.14325 of 2016

¶36

¶37

the 1^st and 2^nd respondents before Munsiff Court, Sulthanbathery.

¶38

Taking note of all these aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, since Ext.P2 application seeking direction to deposit the fixed deposit amount before the State Commission is pending, a direction can be issued to the State Commission to take on board the said application, receive objection from the petitioner, and consider the same within a time frame. Moreover, Ext.P3 order is not a speaking order. When the petitioner entered appearance, sufficient opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. Having not done so, Ext.P3 order suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. Accordingly I quash the same.

¶39

Therefore, there will be a direction accordingly to the 3^rd respondent Commission to attain a finality on Ext.P2 within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing

¶40

W.P.(C). No.14325 of 2016

¶41

¶42

to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. I make it clear that, I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of this matter.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

smv 29.11.2016

Branch Manager v. Lali Lawrence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Lali Lawrence

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cochin Inernationl Airport Ltd.

Jose V.J. Vs State of Kerala

D.Johny Vs State of Kerala

Amminikutty Vs Sasikala

Vivek G. Vs State of Kerala

K.Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer