KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. No. 1108/10

 IN APPEAL 542/2010

ORDER  DATED 28.03.2011

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      : MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                      ;  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. ABDULLA SONA                     :  MEMBER

APPELLANT

DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.

8^th Floor, HDIL Towers, A.K. Marg, Bandra(E),

Mumbai, Maharashtra.

                       ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri. Denu Joseph)                                 

                                         Vs

RESPONDENT

1.          Dr. Jayan James,

       House No. 1/184, Nanthirikkal, Kundara, Kollam.

2.          The Manager, DHL World wide Express (India) Pvt. Ltd,

B1, Ist Floor, Shama Anand, Trust building, Jetty Road, Kollam – 691 001.

          ( R1 rep. by Adv. Sri. Narayan R.)

ORDER

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

          The petitioner is the Asst. Legal Manager of the appellant company.  The delay sought to be condoned is 884 days. In the affidavit filed,  it is submitted that there has been change in the name and management of the appellant company and the office was also shifted.  The officers who handled the above matter previously were also left. It is only on getting the notice dated 6.4.2010 under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act, from the Forum below, the appellant company knew about the pendency of such a matter before the Forum.  The certified copy of relevant records were obtained from the Forum only on 27.8.2010 and thereafter entrusted the  lawyer for filing the appeal.

          The first counter petitioner /first respondent filed objection stating that the averment of the appellant that they came to know about the order only on 6.4.2010 is utter falsehood and even if it is accepted, the appellant took more than 167 days to prefer this appeal even after getting the order.  No explanation is forth coming to the further delay in filing the appeal from 6.4.2010.

          We find that the inordinate delay of 887 days has not been properly explained. Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise  of discretion of jurisdiction vested in this commission under first provision to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.  We find that the appellant failed to establish that there is sufficient reason  or mitigating the circumstances to condone the delay.

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

                         VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

                         M.V. VISWANATHAN      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         M.K. ABDULLA SONA    :   MEMBER

ST