Writ petition challenging orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was dismissed due to inordinate seven-year delay in challenging earlier judgments and availability of efficacious remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
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 V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 24631 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ABDUL MAJEED K.K, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. PAVIAR HAJI, MANIMUNDA HOUSE, KOODATHAI AMSOM, MANAGER, KOODATHAI GAS AGENCY, CHUNGAM, THAMARASSERY , KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 573. BY ADVS. T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ K.P.MAJEED MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323) SHANKAR V.
RESPONDENTS:
2 AMMAD KUTTY, POOVATHUNGAL, ELETTIL P.O, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 573
BY ADV. AMMINIKUTTY K. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.24631 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2022
The challenge in this writ petition is against an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode, as modified by Ext.P2 judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The petitioner is satisfied with one portion of the appellate judgment, while being aggrieved by the other part.
WP(C) NO.24631 OF 2022
3
to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and cost of Rs.250/- is not complied with. The direction having attained finality by Ext.P2 judgment, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition, particularly when the petitioner had an efficacious remedy before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
For the reasons aforementioned, the writ is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/12-8
WP(C) NO.24631 OF 2022
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24631/2022
| PETITIO | NER’S EXHIBITS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P1 ORDE THE |
R DAT CDRF, |
ED 30.07.2014 IN C.C. NO. 311/2011 OF KOZHIKODE. |
| EXHIBIT | P2 TRUE 405/ CONS |
COP 2014 UMER |
Y OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO. DATED 27.07.2015 OF THE KERALA STATE DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 TRUE FILE RESP |
COPY D BY ONDEN |
OF E.A. 25/2020 OF C.C. NO. 311/2012 THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST T. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 TRUE 2ND 2.11 |
COPY RESP .2021 |
OF CALCULATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ONDENT IN E.A. NO. 25/2020 DATED . |
| EXHIBIT | P5 E.A. THE |
NO. PETIT |
4/2022 IN C.C. NO. 311/2012 FILED BY IONER WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 4.2.2022. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 TRUE |
COPY | OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2022 IN E.A. |
| NO. 311/ |
4/20 2012 |
22 AND E.A. 25/2020 IN C.C. NO. PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed to quash orders of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum should be entertained after an inordinate delay of seven years whe
Abdul Majeed K.K
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode
Ammad Kutty
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
