KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 528/2020 in APPEAL No. 239/2020

ORDER DATED: 15.07.2021

(Against the Order in C.C. 80/2016 of CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN         : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                     : MEMBER

SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN                                : MEMBER

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. (previously M/s SAB Miller India Ltd.), 6^th Floor, Green Heart Building, Mfar Mandya Tech Park, Phase IV, Nagavar Village, Bangalore-560 045 represented by its Managing Director.

(By Advs. S. Abhilash & K.G. Rita)

                                             Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Ashish Poddar, 80/2A Block-B Bangur Avenue, South Dum Dum (M), North 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700 055.
2. Anirudda Samajpati, 347/328,   Banerji Para Road, Paschim Putiari,  Kolkata,  West Bengal-700 041.
3. M/s. Kerala State Beverages Corporation Ltd., P.B No.2203, Sasthakripa Office Complex, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram-695 010.

ORDER

SRI.RANJIT.R: MEMBER

The counsel who is appearing for the appellant in A 239/2020 filed IA 528/2020 seeking condonation of a delay of 722 days in preferring the appeal. Another IA 536/20 of the party /appellant to condone a delay of 76 days originally caused in preferring the appeal is filed along with the appeal memorandum, which, though prepared on 07.02.2019 was not filed in time.  According to the counsel the appeal was filed only on 03.02.2020.  Thus, there occasioned a further delay of 642 days in filing the appeal before this Commission.   Therefore, the counsel had filed the above IA 528/2020 seeking to condone a total delay of 722 days in preferring the appeal.  The reasons stated by the counsel for the delay, for preferring the appeal memorandum are (1) That the counsel had entrusted another advocate in Thiruvananthapuram to file the appeal before this Commission on 09.02.2019 itself.  (2) That the counsel in Thiruvananthapuram did not file the appeal on time but he misled him and made him to believe that, though the appeal was filed on time, as there was delay, the appeal was not numbered.  The advocate in Thiruvananthapuram further told him that the petition to condone the delay is posted for return of notice. (3) That only later, when execution petition was filed by the respondent / complainant, the counsel came to know that the appeal was not actually filed.  He was, therefore, unable to file the appeal in time. There is no wilful laches or negligence on his part in not filing the appeal on time.

2.  On receipt of notice, 1^st respondent /1^st complainant appeared in person and opposed the petition. He contended that there is no concrete ground to condone the inordinate delay of 722 days and that the appellant has no statutory right to file such an appeal.  The delay was occasioned due to the wilful laches and lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.

3.  Heard both parties.  We have carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the counsel.

4.  We are not satisfied that the delay in this case has been satisfactorily explained.  No genuine grounds have been made out for condonation of the inordinate delay of 722 days.  The grounds taken by the counsel that the advocate at Thiruvananthapuram had misled him and made him to believe that the appeal was already filed, but was not numbered as there was petition to condone the delay, etc, are not convincing.  A leading lawyer like him would have been well aware that all appeals would be numbered even if there was delay.  The counsel should have inquired about the matter with the State Commission office or through the ‘confonet’ website and found out whether the appeal was filed or not.  He did not do so. The counsel also has not followed the matter with the advocate with whom he allegedly entrusted the file.  He could have filed the appeal in time had he been serious in pursing the same.   He himself is responsible for the long delay. Admittedly the petitioner did enquire into the matter and took initiative to file the appeal only when the execution proceedings were initiated against his client. Till then he was quite happy to leave the matter as such.  Further it is pertinent to note that even though the execution proceedings were initiated against the appellant, they did not even care to file the affidavit and petition to condone the delay of 722 days, after they had initially prepared and signed the petition to condone the delay and appeal.  The laches and negligence on the part of the appellant is made clear in their conduct, which cannot be accepted.  Lack of diligence and casual approach in the matter is writ large in the conduct of the petitioner as well as the appellant. Therefore, we find no ground to condone the inordinate delay of 722 days that has been occasioned in this case.

In the result, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed.  Consequently, the appeal also is dismissed.

Release the statutory amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the appellant which was deposited by them, on filing proper application.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                T.S.P. MOOSATH   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                 RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A             : MEMBER

              K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN            : MEMBER

jb