The court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Consumer Redressal Forum order. The judgment observed that the Forum correctly dismissed a review petition and that a subsequent request to accept a version was also improper. The court held the petitioner should file an appeal instead.
The writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939
WP(C).No. 31075 of 2017 (H)
PETITIONER :
----------
K.S. SHAILENDRANATHA PILLAI
AGED 45 YEARS, FACULTY, PILLAIS CORPORATE EDUCATION, IMANI TOWER, JUDGES AVENUE, ERNAKULAM - 17.
BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. RACHNA BHASKAR D/O. BHASKARAN V., AGED 26 YEARS, SREE 23, LANE NO.7, RAJBHAVAN, EROOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM - 682 306.
3. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-382031.
R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 31075 of 2017 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY CDRF, EKM. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY CDRF, EKM ON 20/7/2017.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
W.P.(C).No. 31075 of 2017 H
Dated this the 03rd day of November, 2017
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P2 order. In
Ext.P1, it is seen that the petitioner sought for a review of
the order of the Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner
was set ex-parte and the petitioner filed two petitions for
setting aside the ex-parte and also for accepting a version.
The Forum strangely enough allowed the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order on payment of Rs.2,000/-.,
but, dismissed the petition to accept the version. In any event, the petitioner did not deposit the cost as directed. In that event, the I.A for setting aside the ex-parte order was
dismissed. The opposite party was examined. A
WP(C).31075/2017
2
subsequent petition was filed, which the Forum rightly found
is a review, for which the Forum is not empowered. The
petitioner would have to file an appeal.
Writ petition would stand dismissed with the above
observations.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in quashing the order of the Consumer Redressal Forum that dismissed a review petition and a subsequent petition to entertain a version.
Whether the petitioner filed an appeal instead of a review petition given the nature of the grievances raised.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.S. Shailendranatha Pillai
State of Kerala
Rachna Bhaskar
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ernakulam
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
