KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. NO. 1313/2010 IN APPEAL 585/2010

ORDER  DATED 16.3.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :  MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR          :  MEMBER 

APPELLANTS

1.        The Secretary,

KSEB, Vaidhyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.        Asst. Executive Engineer,

Electrical Major Section,

KSEB, Kundara.

3.        Asst.  Engineer,

KSEB, Electrical Section, Kundara, Kollam.

                      ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri.  Balachandran)

                                                Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.          Georgekutty K.M.,

Binu Dale, Panayam P.O.,Perinad, Kollam -2

  2.    T.S. Varghese,

      Drushma Bhavan,

     Cherumoodu, Vellimon P.O.,Kollam

                            ( Rep. by  Adv. G.S. Krishnakumar)

ORDER  

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 281 days in filing the appeal.  The reason mentioned in the affidavit is that though the impugned order was communicated to the petitioner on 28.11.2009, the copy of the same was forwarded to the chief office for further action and the sanction to prefer the appeal was obtained only on 26.5.2010.  Meanwhile the order of the lower Forum was found misplaced and it was traced out only on 18.9.2010 and entrusted the standing counsel at Trivandrum on 20.9.2010 and the appeal was filed on 26.10.2010.

           The application was opposed by the respondent stating that though in the affidavit the petitioner stated that the copy of the order was forwarded to the chief office for getting sanction to file the appeal, actual forwarding date is not mentioned in the affidavit and no documents were produced by the petitioner to prove the actual date of communication.  Pleading that there is willful laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the appeal in time, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition. 

We find that the reasons mentioned for condoning the delay is hardly sufficient or convincing.  The inordinate delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained.  Hence we are not inclined to Condon the delay.

          In the result, the delay condonation petition is dismissed.  Hence the appeal is also dismissed.

                             VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

                             S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR           :      MEMBER

ST