KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 430/2023 in APPEAL No. 209/2023
ORDER DATED: 01.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 303/2018 of CDRC, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Skoda Financial Services, Regd Office: a Wing Utopia Cordinal, Gracious Road, Chakkola, Andheri, Mumbai- 400069 now owned and operated by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. (A company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956) having its office at 27-BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Maharashtra- 400051, and having its branch office at Ground Floor S.I White Heaven, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram- 695010 represented through its Senior Manager Mr. Akhilesh A.
(By Adv. Thirumala. K. Bijukumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Fahad Muhammed. V, Fahad Cottege, GH Road, Feroke P.O, Kozhikode-673631.
- Pinacle Skoda, 14/151 3B, C&D, Kannur Road, Pavangad, Puthiyangadi, Kozhikode- 673021.
- M/s. Skoda Auto Private Limited, Lot No. A-1/1 Shendra Five Star, Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurengabad, India- 431201.
ORDER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER
This is a petition for condonation of the delay in filing an appeal by the second opposite party against the order in C.C. No. 303/2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 17.10.2022, the District Commission directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,92,972/- being the excess amount collected from the complainant. The petition is for condoning the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal.
2. The complainant is the registered owner of a Skoda Rapid Ambition AT Car which was purchased from the first opposite party dealer. Second opposite party was the financier and the 3rd opposite party was the manufacturer. The complaint was filed for recovery of the excess amount remitted to the loan account. Though notice was issued, the first and second opposite parties did not appear and hence they were set ex-parte. Only 3rd opposite party contested the case. As the 1st and 2nd opposite parties were declared ex-parte, there was no oral or documentary evidence on their side. Hence the complaint has been allowed by the District Commission placing reliance on the unchallenged evidence available in this case against them.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they came to know about the case only when they received a mail from the third opposite party on 09.01.2023. They took over the business of the 2nd opposite party only on 15.09.2022 and they were having no knowledge or intimation regarding pendency of the case. Hence he prayed for condonation of the delay.
5. On a perusal of the affidavit for condonation of delay, we observe that there is no valid reason stated in the affidavit for the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. No specific reason is given for the delay. The appellant herein only states that they have taken over the business of the second opposite party only on 15.09.2022. However, this is not a sufficient reason for delay and also for filing an appeal by the appellant who is not a party to the complaint before the District Commission. The order is dated 17.10.2022 whereas the appeal is filed only on 25.03.2023. So the actual delay in filing the appeal is more than 75 days.
6. Needless to say that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Where there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appears before the Commission seeking condonation of delay to explain it with sufficient reasons. The appellant appears to have not acted diligently and had remained inactive for quite some time after getting the order of the District Commission. They have not been able to give adequate and sufficient reasons to show that they were prevented from approaching this Commission within the limitation period, due to circumstances beyond their control.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to condone the delay of 75 days. The petition for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed in limine being barred by limitation.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 209/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 01.06.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 303/2018 of CDRC, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Skoda Financial Services, Regd Office: a Wing Utopia Cordinal, Gracious Road, Chakkola, Andheri, Mumbai- 400069 now owned and operated by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. (A company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956) having its office at 27-BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Maharashtra- 400051, and having its branch office at Ground Floor S.I White Heaven, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram- 695010 represented through its Senior Manager Mr. Akhilesh A.
(By Adv. Thirumala. K. Bijukumar)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Fahad Muhammed. V, Fahad Cottege, GH Road, Feroke P.O, Kozhikode- 673631.
- Pinacle Skoda, 14/151 3B, C&D, Kannur Road, Pavangad, Puthiyangadi, Kozhikode- 673021.
- M/s. Skoda Auto Private Limited, Lot No. A-1/1 Shendra Five Star, Industrial Area, MIDC, Aurengabad, India- 431201.
JUDGMENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER
Petition for condonation of delay dismissed. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to them, on proper application.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
