KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 1493/2023 in APPEAL No. 753/2023

ORDER DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 08/2020 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Costal Chambers, Opp: Mercy Estate, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Cochin-682 015 represented by its Officer-in-charge.

(By Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. G. Upendranadhu, Abhinavam House, Edasserimala, Aranmula P.O.-689 533.

(By Adv. Jwala K.P.)

2. The Federal Bank Ltd., Kozhencherry Branch, represented by its Branch Manager.

(By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is a petition filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 753/2023 to condone a delay of 132 days in filing the appeal.

2.  The appeal has been preferred against the order in C.C. No. 08/2020 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta dated 28.02.2023 on the following grounds:

A copy of the order was served on the petitioner on 30.05.2023.  The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 15.07.2023.  Only on getting notice in E.A. 19/2023 the petitioner came to know that an order had been passed against them.  Immediately after tracing out the order, the concerned file was sent to the Head Office at Ernakulam for preferring the appeal.  An expert advice was also obtained from the lawyer of the Hon’ble High Court.  For completing these formalities the delay occurred.  There is no willful negligence on the part of the appellant.  Hence the petitioner would seek for condonation of the delay. 

3.  Respondents 1 & 2 filed separate objections against the request for condonation.  According to them, no proper explanation has been offered by the petitioner regarding the delay.  The 2^nd respondent would allege that the contentions in the affidavit filed in support of the petition would show the lack of bonafides in the stand taken by the petitioner.  In the affidavit there is a specific recital that the copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 30.05.2023.  At the same time it is stated that only on getting the notice in E.A. 19/2023 the petitioner could understand that such an order was passed against them.  These two versions are mutually contradictory.  The version contained in the affidavit sworn by the petitioner proves the lack of bonafides and hence the respondents would seek for dismissal of the petition. 

4.  Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.  Perused the affidavit filed in support of this petition.  The petitioner has approached the matter in a casual manner.  In paragraph (2) of the affidavit it is clearly sworn that the copy of the order was received by the petitioner on 30.05.2023.  But in the subsequent paragraph it is mentioned that only on getting the notice in E.A. 19/2023 the petitioner could understand that such an order was passed against them.  From these two recitals one can reach a conclusion that the petitioner has no bonafides in the facts sworn in the affidavit.  When condonation of delay is sought for, it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to offer cogent explanation.  At one stage the petitioner would submit that the copy of the order was served on the petitioner on 30.05.2023.  But at the same time it is also sworn that the petitioner became aware about the order only when the notice in the Execution Application was received.  The objection raised by the respondent that the petitioner has no valid explanation with respect to the delay caused in filing the appeal appears to be true and correct.  Since the petitioner has miserably failed to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the delay caused we are disinclined to allow the petition.

In the result, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                 AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                  RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 753/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 08/2020 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Costal Chambers, Opp: Mercy Estate, M.G. Road, Ravipuram, Cochin-682 015 represented by its Officer-in-charge.

(By Adv. Prasanna Kumar Nair)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. G. Upendranadhu, Abhinavam House, Edasserimala, Aranmula P.O.-689 533.

(By Adv. Jwala K.P.)

2. The Federal Bank Ltd., Kozhencherry Branch, represented by its Branch Manager.

(By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed.  The petition filed as I.A. No. 1493/2023 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. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                 AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                                RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb