KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 906/2023 in APPEAL No. 452/2023
ORDER DATED: 14.09.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 103/2019 of CDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
U. Abdul Nazar, S/o Alikutty, Urathodiyil House, Thrithala P.O., Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Abdul Latheef, Thekkiniyanajel House, Chelakadavu, Mukkuthala P.O., Malappuram-679 574.
(Party in person)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The petitioner was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) in C.C. No.103/2019. On 25.11.2021 the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 11,21,066/- as the value of 243.71 gms of gold, to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as costs to the respondent by accepting the case of the respondent that on 10.11.2014 the petitioner had obtained Rs. 7 Lakhs from him on a promise to provide 34 sovereigns of gold.
2. According to the petitioner copy of the order was received in December 2021, but the same was misplaced and the petitioner had later obtained a certified copy of the order. Hence a delay of 556 days occurred in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner he was dragged into the case. He had no financial capacity to remit the statutory deposit as his condition worsened due to the spread of Covid. He would plead that there was no negligence or laches on his part and hence he would seek for an order condoning the delay.
3. The respondent/complainant appeared and filed objection with the following grounds:-
On 10.11.2014 the petitioner had received Rs. 7 Lakhs at a Jewellery situated at Edappal by name "Avathar Jewellery" as advance on an assurance that the petitioner will provide the respondent 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments on demand by charging 4% as making charges, but the petitioner had given only 4 sovereigns of gold to the respondent on 15.01.2015. In 2016 the petitioner had closed down his shop after removing the gold from the jewellery and absconded from the locality. He was arrested by the Thrissur East Police. But he assured that he will repay the cash after getting an order of release from the custody. The petitioner did not repay the amount. Thereupon the complaint was filed which culminated into the impugned order.
4. The respondent had paid the amount on an assurance from the petitioner that he will provide 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the marriage of the daughter of the respondent. The wedding invitation of the daughter’s marriage was also marked as an exhibit to prove the bonafides of the contentions raised in the complaint.
5. After passing the order the respondent had filed a petition for execution of the order. The petitioner had appeared in the execution proceedings and filed objection. An arrest warrant was also issued against the petitioner. Now this appeal was filed only to deprive the respondent from realizing the amount by attachment and sale of the property of the petitioner. There is no merit in the stand taken by the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides. Perused the copy of the order passed by the District Commission. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the period of delay includes the exclusion of limitation on account of the spread of Covid. According to the petitioner his financial capacity was badly affected due to the spread of Covid and hence he requested the Commission to take a benevolent approach.
7. The respondent/complainant would draw our attention to the exhibits marked on his side. He had paid the cash on a promise that the petitioner would provide 34 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the complainant for the marriage of his daughter. The materials on record would show that several persons were cheated by the petitioner in the same manner by collecting funds on a promise that gold ornaments will be provided for the marriages of the daughters of the beneficiaries.
8. At this stage we are not expected to consider the merits of the case. But at the same time it is our duty to consider as to whether the petitioner has got any valid reasons to condone the delay. The period of exclusion of limitation on account of the spread of Covid-19 as per the suo moto proceedings of the Apex Court has elapsed on 29.05.2022, but the instant appeal has been filed in the month of July 2023. The facts gathered from the objection filed by the complainant would show that the petitioner had appeared in the execution proceedings and filed objection. So it is evident that the petitioner has no valid explanation for the inordinate delay caused. It is true that the courts should be liberal while considering an application for condonation of delay. But it is the paramount duty of the applicant to convince the Commission with regard to the cause of delay. The petitioner has no valid explanation with respect to the delay caused. Showing undue sympathy to the petitioner would work out against the interest of justice. Since the petitioner has no valid explanation with regard to the inordinate delay we are not inclined to condone the delay.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 452/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 14.09.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 103/2019 of CDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
U. Abdul Nazar, S/o Alikutty, Urathodiyil House, Thrithala P.O., Pattambi Taluk, Palakkad.
(By Adv. Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Abdul Latheef, Thekkiniyanajel House, Chelakadavu, Mukkuthala P.O., Malappuram-679 574.
(Party in person)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No. 906/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
