KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 174/2024 in APPEAL No. 84/2024
ORDER DATED: 09.04.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 201/2022 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Madhavadas a/s Shaji, S/o Bhaskaran, Thekkedath House, Kunissery Amsom, Kuniserry P.O., Alathur Taluk, Palakkad-678 681.
(By Advs. Yedukrishnan S & Threya J. Pillai)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Bhaskaran Nair, Manghat House, Thekkethara, Kunissery Amsom, Kuniserry P.O., Alathur Taluk, Palakkad-678 681.
(By Adv. Surendran P.A.)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking for condonation of a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. On 11.07.2023, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (District Commission for short) had allowed C.C. No. 201/2022 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,52,000/- to the complainant being the cost of the remaining item of work to be done along with interest @ 10% from 22.09.2018 till payment. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appeal has been filed.
2. While preferring the appeal a delay of 145 days was caused. The reason stated for the delay is that the file was misplaced in the office of the counsel for the petitioner which could be traced out only on 25.01.2024.
3. The respondent entered appearance and opposed the application. He has filed a counter statement. His contention is that he is a retired Army Personnel aged 81 years. The petitioner had failed to undertake the construction work of his building and that is why the complaint was filed. According to him the petitioner had entered appearance before the District Commission on receiving the notice, but failed to file version within the statutory period. Subsequently the complainant had adduced evidence and the impugned order was passed. The reason stated by the petitioner is devoid of any truth. When the respondent had moved before the District Commission for execution, the appellant had appeared and stated that they could not file an appeal within the stipulated time as the lawyer had sustained an injury. The case that the file was misplaced in the office of the lawyer is a false story. The respondent would seek for dismissal of the application.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent who appeared in person. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. On going through the order passed by the District Commission it could be seen that the petitioner was served with the notice issued by the District Commission, but failed to file version within the statutory period. So the District Commission was constrained to set the petitioner ex-parte and proceed with the trial of the case. When delay is sought to be condoned, there should be valid reason. The Consumer Protection Act contemplates time frame for filing version and appeal before the Appellate Authority. The conduct of the petitioner in not filing version before the District Commission within the statutory period indicates his lack of interest in defending the case. The explanation offered by the petitioner is a stereo type one. We are not convinced about the reasons stated by the petitioner in the affidavit sworn in support of this petition. Since the petitioner has not succeeded to satisfy us that he has valid reason for the delay caused in filing the appeal we are not inclined to allow the request for condonation of the delay.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 84/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 09.04.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 201/2022 of DCDRC, Palakkad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Madhavadas a/s Shaji, S/o Bhaskaran, Thekkedath House, Kunissery Amsom, Kuniserry P.O., Alathur Taluk, Palakkad-678 681.
(By Advs. Yedukrishnan S & Threya J. Pillai)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Bhaskaran Nair, Manghat House, Thekkethara, Kunissery Amsom, Kuniserry P.O., Alathur Taluk, Palakkad-678 681.
(By Adv. Surendran P.A.)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No. 174/2024 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.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
