KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 849/2023 in APPEAL No. 426/2023
ORDER DATED: 24.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 180/2020 of CDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Ullas T.P., S/o Pavithran T.M. Thachappully House, Engandiyur, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur-680 615.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- E.P. Chandrangathan, S/o K.M.E Kunhappa Nambiar, Saketham, Kannapuram, Mottamal P.O, Kannur- 670331.
(By Adv. Narayan. R)
- Valsan Panikkar, S/o Janardhana Panikkar, Malana House, Perumbadappu Desom, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District-679 580.
- Vasthuhara Developers and Real Estate Ltd., C. Achutha Menon Road,
Poonkunnam P.O, Thrissur- 680002.
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARY. A : MEMBER
The petitioner is the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 180/2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur, (District Commission for short) and the 1st respondent was the complainant. The matter was regarding delay in completing the construction of a flat. The District Commission allowed the complaint on 04-07-2022. Against the impugned order the 1st opposite party/ appellant filed this appeal. There has been a delay of 330 days in filing this appeal.
2. The appellant stated the reason for the delay is that his aged father was bedridden and he is the only son to look after the father. Therefore he could not go to collect the order in time. Hence the delay had occurred. He has produced medical certificate.
3. The 1st respondent entered appearance and filed objection to the delay condonation petition. The 1st respondent stated that there is no sufficient reason for the inordinate delay of 330 days in filing the appeal. A vague averment that the appellant was engaged with household duties and for looking after his father is not a ground for condonation of delay of 330 days. The 1st respondent further submitted that the appellant had promised to settle the matter and had given a cheque to the complainant in view of the terms of settlement. But that cheque was bounced. And still a case under section 138 of N. I Act is pending against the appellant.
We heard both sides. The reason stated by the petitioner/appellant for the delay of 330 days is not sufficient. From the pleadings and argument of both sides we find that the intention of the petitioner is to protract the matter and hence lacks bonafides. There is wilful delay and laches from the side of the petitioner. Hence the delay condonation petition is dismissed.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 426/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 24.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 180/2020 of CDRC, Kannur)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Ullas T.P., S/o Pavithran T.M. Thachappully House, Engandiyur, Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur-680 615.
(By Adv. Unnikrishnan V.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- E.P. Chandrangathan, S/o K.M.E Kunhappa Nambiar, Saketham, Kannapuram, Mottamal P.O, Kannur- 670331.
(By Adv. Narayan. R)
- Valsan Panikkar, S/o Janardhana Panikkar, Malana House, Perumbadappu Desom, Ponnani Taluk, Malappuram District-679 580.
- Vasthuhara Developers and Real Estate Ltd., C. Achutha Menon Road,
Poonkunnam P.O, Thrissur- 680002.
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARY. A : MEMBER
Petition for condonation of delay dismissed. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to him, on proper acknowledgment.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
