D.o.F:30/12/2010

D.o.O:9/3/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                              IA.Nos.39/11 ,40/11,41/11,42/11 in

                            CC NOs 273/10,274/10,275/10 &276/10

                     Dated this, the 9th day of March 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI         : MEMBER

IA.39/11 in CC273/10

Sugandhi ,K.V, D/o (L) K.V Koran,

Saradalayam, Thattacherry,

Nileshwar Po, Kasaragod.

IA.40/11 in CC.274/10

Sumithra .V, D/o (L) K.V Koran,

Saradalayam, Thattacherry,Nileshwar Po, Kasaragod                                                                 IA.41/11 in CC.275/10

K.Ramla,  W/o  Muhammedali, K.P                         : Applicant s/Complainants

K.P.House, Manthampuram

Nileshwar Po, Kasaragod

IA.42/11 in CC.276/10

Sunilkumar,

Saradalayam, Thattacherry,Ramaram.

Nileshwar Po, Kasaragod

      President,  Pudukkai Vainingattu-

    Sree Vairajathan  Eashwarante                                : Respondent/Opposite parties

    Kshethram Committee    Pudukkai, 

    Po.Uppilikkai, Nileshwar,Hosdurg.& 2 others

                                    COMMON ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ       : PRESIDENT

   These applications are filed to condone the delay of 22 months (660 days) caused in filing the complaints.  According to the applicants/complainants the opposite parties accepted their chitty instalments till Feb 2007 and thereafter  on enquiry they realized that opposite parties have closed their chitty office.  In May 2007 2^nd opposite party is arrested by the police and later when  applicants/complainants met Opposite parties 2&3 they stating one or other reasons did not pay the money and committed deficiency in service.  Only because of believing the request of opposite parties 1 to 3  seeking time for payment of money stating one or other reason the filing of complaints  delayed.

  Heard the counsel for applicants.  The learned counsel submitted that the complainants were expecting the payment of  money and   in CC .273/10,274/10, &276/10  applicants/complainants are belongs to same family.  The reason  stated for the delay is not at all convincing  .  In fact 3^rd opposite party was absconding in 2007 itself and his  whereabouts were now not known.  In  a number of cases filed before this Forum earlier against opposite parties 1 to 3, 3^rd opposite party was never appeared and hence publication of notice was effected against 3^rd opposite party in all those cases.  Therefore the cases of the applicants that they directly met opposite parties 2&3 and demanded money and  on all  occasion they stated one or other reasons and sought extension  of time for payment is not  believable and hence that could not be taken as a ground to condone the delay of 22 months (660 days)  caused in filing the complaints.  Hence we are not inclined to accept the applications.

                     In the result Interim Applications are dismissed.  Hence the  complaints are also dismissed  holding that it is barred by limitation.

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

eva