Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 interim order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing the petitioner to release the vehicle to the 2nd respondent with the undertaking that he will pay the amount, if any, due to the petitioner. 2. The 2nd respondent herein has approached the Consumer Redressal Forum complaining about the deficiency in service in respect of a vehicle which was given for repairs to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, though he had conducted proper repairs, he was not paid the repairing charges as a result of which he has filed O.S. No. 196/2012 before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara seeking recovery of the money, which is pending consideration. Hence an application was filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. By Ext. P3, it was found that the complaint was not maintainable especially in the light of the pendency of the civil suit against which the 2nd respondent has preferred an appeal before the State Commission. It was during the pendency of the appeal that Ext. P4 order came to be passed.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the W.P(C) No. 18709 of 2013 -: 2 :-
petitioner that the State Commission had permitted release of the vehicle without calling upon the 2nd respondent to furnish any security.
4. Ext. P4 appeal is a discretionary order by the appellate authority pending decision in the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent herein. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which is pending consideration and if the petitioner requires any security for the amount involved in the matter, it shall always be open to the petitioner to approach the civil court and seek appropriate directions for attachment of any property belonging to the 2nd respondent. In that view of the matter, the interim order passed by the State Commission cannot stand in the way of the petitioner for obtaining attachment before judgment of any property including that involved in the lis.
Under these circumstances, I do not think that there is any necessity to interfere with Ext. P4 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/