Dismissed

Premalatha Prabhakar, v. the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Kerala HC11 Mar 2019WP(C)/29291/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against an interlocutory order directing deposit of 50% of the award for stay. Relying on the State Commission's satisfaction and principles of discretion, the court found no illegality or arbitrariness. Additionally, the petitioner was granted two weeks time to comply.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two weeks time to comply with the order directed by the impugned interlocutory order.

Premalatha Prabhakar, Vs the Kerala State Consumer… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PREMALATHA PRABHAKAR, PROPRIETOR, SAPP PAPER TECHNIQ, 6 VKS GARDENS, PERUMAL KOVIL STREET VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU-641041.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.KRISHNAN KARTHA LIJIN THAMBAN RATHEESH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KERALA CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION REDRESSAL COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, SISU VIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHAKAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶11

2 RENJITH C.M., PROPREITOR, AISWARYA PAPER PRODUCT, AISWARYA, 1/292A, NEAR KATTIL MARKET, KUMARAPURAM P.O., KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690516.

¶12

3 K. SASI, S/O KARUNAKARAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, TAMALACKAL, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-690516.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.Y JAFFARKHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶19

seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

i) Call for records and

¶21

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P5.

¶22

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the 1^st respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 without insisting for any deposit other than statutory mandate.

¶23

iv) Pass such other writ, order or direction as may

¶24

be necessary in the interest of justice.

¶25

The challenge made in the writ petition is

¶26

against Ext.P5 interlocutory order passed by the

¶27

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

¶28

Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.728/2018 in Appeal

¶29

No.389/2018 directing the petitioner to remit 50% of

¶30

the award amount within a month and produce a receipt

¶31

before the Commission. Even though various contentions

¶32

are raised by learned counsel for petitioner, I do not

¶33

propose to entertain the same since the State

¶34

Commission having been satisfied with the issues only

¶35

has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner

¶36

to remit 50% of the amount. It is the case of the

¶37

learned counsel for petitioner that, in order to

¶38

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018 3

¶39

entertain an appeal, 25% of the amount alone need be deposited. However, learned Government Pleader pointed out that, statutory requirement for deposit of 25% of the amount is for maintainability of the appeal and the Commission is vested with ample powers to order deposit of sufficient amounts so as to grant stay of the proceedings of the District Forum. Learned Government Pleader has also invited my attention to the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Shashi Films (P) Ltd.(M/s.) v. Rajinder Kaushal [2008 KHC 7739]and has specifically referred to paragraph 10 which read thus:

¶40

Exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Fora with respect to grant or non-grant of an order staying the operation or execution of the impugned judgment is always guided and influenced by the well established principles, such as the capacity of the appellant to pay or not to pay the amount in question, the appellant having established or having failed to establish a prima facie case in his favour, the balance of convenience between the parties, the prospects of the respondent in the appeal being deprived of the benefits of the impugned judgment if the amount in question is not deposited and if ultimately the appeal filed by the appellant fails, etc. etc. It is on these and various other considerations, by now based on well established principles of law, that the

¶41

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018 4

¶42

Appellate Fora exercise jurisdiction in granting or refusing to grant orders staying the operation or execution of the impugned jugments. While exercising such jurisdiction the Appellate Fore can put the appellants to such terms as these are considered appropriate and suitable. In a given situation, based on its own appreciation of facts, an Appellate Forum has the jurisdiction to insist that the entire award amount be deposited by the appellant and only then it would be grant an order staying the operation of the impugned judgment. It may, in a differently given situation, insist upon the appellant about the part - payment of the amount in question. Each case would depend upon its own merits and in each fact - situation the Appellate Fora would exercise the jurisdiction as well as its discretion based upon the well established parameters and norms.”

¶43

I find force in the said contention advanced by

¶44

learned Government Pleader and therefore, I do not think, petitioner has made out a case justifying interference of this court exercising power of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no arbitrariness or illegality. Needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that,

¶46

reasonable time may be provided for making the payment

¶47

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018 5

¶48

in accordance with the directions issued by the State Commission. Therefore, petitioner is granted two weeks time to comply with the directions contained in the order, from today.

Smv 11.3.2019

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 29291 of 2018

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C. NO.72/2016 OF THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM ALAPPUZHA DATED 28.2.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.389/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE ENCLOSURES EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NUMBER 983796 DRAWN ON BANK OF INDIA PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION I.A.728/18 IN APPEAL 389/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.728/2018 IN APPEAL 389/2018 DATED 4.7.2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Premalatha Prabhakar, v. the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premalatha Prabhakar, v. the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala Handball Association Vs Union of India

Anagha Rajan Vs the Kerala State Sports Council

Priya A.J Vs Punjab National Bank

Suresh Kumar, Vs District Collector

Zakkir Hussain Vs Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

Sivaraj Vs Union of India