KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 417/2023 in APPEAL No. 201/2023
ORDER DATED: 11.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 165/2020 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Advocate Praveen Vyasan, High Court of Kerala, Malloor Road, Vanchiyoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 035.
(By Adv. K. Jayaprasad)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. Gopakumar, T.C. 43/1925, Aryasala, Chalai P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(Party in person)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the opposite party in C.C. No. 165 of 2020 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (will be referred as District Commission) for condonation of the delay of 114 days in filing the appeal.
2. The allegation contained in the complaint in short is that the complainant had entrusted the opposite party who is a lawyer to file a case and handed over the connected documents and paid fees of Rs. 65,000/-, but the opposite party did not take any steps for filing the case. The complainant had sent registered notice to him requesting to furnish the number of the case instituted, but not complied with. Ultimately he sought for return of the original documents, but no response was received from the opposite party. The complainant then resorted to file a complaint before the District Commission with an allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. On 19.07.2022 the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund ₹ 65,000/- along with the original documents received from the complainant, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
3. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner has filed this appeal, but there is a delay of 114 days in filing the appeal. According to the petitioner he came to know about the order only after receiving notice in the execution proceedings. Immediately he made a search to trace out the file but he could trace out the same only belatedly resulting in the delay discussed above.
4. The respondent objected the petition. He caused production of the order of the Bar Council of Kerala dated 05.02.2023. The Bar Council had directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 65,000/- received from the complainant and to return the documents within 15 days failing which the enrollment of the petitioner will stand suspended for 2 years.
5. Heard both sides, perused the affidavit and the records filed in support of the petition and also the order of the District Commission.
6. The explanation for the delay as stated by the petitioner is that he came to know about the order only on receipt of the notice in the execution proceedings. This explanation does not appear to be correct in view of the observation contained in the order of the District Commission that the notice was served on the petitioner. We do not find any reason to discredit the observations made by District Commission in this regard. The complainant drew our attention regarding the hardships caused on account of the conduct of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, a lawyer was entrusted to file a suit and he had handed over all documents and paid Rs.65,000/- as fees but no suit was filed and he was constrained to engage another lawyer and caused initiation of the litigation. The complainant was constrained to approach the Bar Council, Kerala and an order has been obtained directing the petitioner to return the fees collected and his documents. According to him there is no bonafides in the facts stated in the petition and he would request for dismissal of the petition.
7. Normally a benevolent approach has to be adopted while dealing an application for condonation of delay. If there are reasons to suspect the genuineness of the cause stated it is undesirable to allow such request as the same would work out against the interests of justice. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances we doubt the bonafides regarding the cause of delay. The stand taken by the respondent/complainant that the intention of the petitioner is to protract the proceedings is fully justified. Therefore we are inclined to dismiss the petition.
In the result the petition 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. 201/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 11.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 165/2020 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Advocate Praveen Vyasan, High Court of Kerala, Malloor Road, Vanchiyoor P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 035.
(By Adv. K. Jayaprasad)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. Gopakumar, T.C. 43/1925, Aryasala, Chalai P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(Party in person)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The petition for condonation of the delay stands dismissed. The appeal is not admitted and hence the appeal is dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
