KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 987/2024 in APPEAL No. 449/2024

ORDER DATED: 10.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 194/2021 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

1. Kirloskar Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Training Center Facility, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune-411 003.

2. Kirloskar Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Training Center Facility, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune-411 003.

(By Adv. Poornima S. Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dr. Ambujam Mohanan, Vaishnavam, CMC-18, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha.

2. Sainu Simson, Proprietor, Inverter Shop, St. Anne’s Shopping Center, S.N. Puram P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.

3. Sasikumar, Proprietor, Sarath Electronics, Varanasi P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.

(By Adv. S. Gopakumar for R2 and R3)

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 762 days in filing the appeal. 

2.  Heard.

3.  The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.

4.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263 :2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-

           “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora”.

5.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy(Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court,  held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.  

6.  The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs. MS. Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.

7.  The National Commission in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the appeal is filed beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain as to what sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the court within the period of limitation.  The National Commission further observed that adequate and enough reason must be there for condoning the delay.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.

8.  In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the State Commission dismissed the application, for condonation of delay of 142 days, filed on the ground that the records were misplaced by the junior advocate of the counsel concerned. The National Commission did not interfere with the said order.

9.  In the light of the above legal position, we have to test whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.

10.  It is contended that the order dated 09.05.2022 was not received by the petitioners.  The petitioners were informed by the 2^nd opposite party that he received the order by hand directly from the District Commission after getting the notice of the execution petition.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the petitioners on 21.06.2023 regarding the order.  The 2^nd opposite party transmitted the copy of the order to the Pune office of the petitioners.  Immediately after receipt of the certified copy of the order, the copy of the order was sent to the registered office of the company and obtained sanction for filing the appeal.  Therefore, there was a delay of 762 days in filing the appeal.  It appears from the order impugned that the petitioners filed version and contested the matter.  The petitioners were also duly represented before the District Commission by a lawyer.  In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not informed by the lawyer about the order passed by the District Commission. 

11.  Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not at all sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in this case.  In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

jb                                                                 AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 449/2024

JUDGMENT  DATED: 10.12.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 194/2021 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Kirloskar Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Training Center Facility, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune-411 003.

2. Kirloskar Integrated Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Training Center Facility, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune-411 003.

(By Adv. Poornima S. Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Dr. Ambujam Mohanan, Vaishnavam, CMC-18, Cherthala P.O., Alappuzha.

2. Sainu Simson, Proprietor, Inverter Shop, St. Anne’s Shopping Center, S.N. Puram P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.

3. Sasikumar, Proprietor, Sarath Electronics, Varanasi P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.

(By Adv. S. Gopakumar for R2 and R3)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

  In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 987/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as time barred.

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

jb