KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 357/2024 in APPEAL No. 173/2024
ORDER DATED: 19.04.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 109/2019 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Cherry Thomas, S/o P.J. Thomas, Pattathil Bhavan, Vadakkekara, Chettipuzha, Veroor, Kottayam-686 104.
(By Adv. Nemom A. Siraj)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- K. Shambu, S/o late Kochukrishnan Nair, Kannamma Nilayam, T.C. 27/1002, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.
(Party in person)
- The Managing Director, M/s Sethiya Solvents and Chemicals, No. 1217, Sukrawarpet, Coimbatore-641 001, Tamil Nadu Code 33.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This is a petition seeking condonation of a delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. According to the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner had not received notice from the District Commission. He was the 1st opposite party in C.C. No. 109/2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (District Commission for short). It is further alleged that, a copy of the order appealed against was never communicated to the petitioner and the delay had occurred because of the said fact. The petitioner has further contended that, due to Covid Pandemic situation he had met with an accident and was laid up for months. According to the affidavit, for the above reason he could not contact the complainant to correct the defects. The petitioner also objects to the order passed by the District Commission alleging that the same was passed based on assumptions and surmises without looking into the merits of the case.
2. This petition is opposed by the 1st respondent, who has filed detailed objections. According to him, all the statements made in the affidavit of the petitioner are false and baseless. It is pointed out in the objections that the petitioner has been a resident of the address shown in the petition, at all times. He had received the notice issued from the District Commission on 16.05.2019 and the postal acknowledgement for service of such notice is available in the records of the case. After having received the notice, he has omitted to appear before the District Commission or to enquire about the progress of the case all these years. He had acted with total disregard to the process of the court. Even after the final order of the District Commission, he did not abide by the directions therein. Therefore warrants of arrest were issued against him in the execution proceedings. In order to escape from being arrested, he had paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the 1st respondent. He had also assured before the court that balance amount would be paid within ten days. Therefore, the contention that he had received the order of the District Commission only on 22.02.2024 is false.
3. Since the petitioner had not appeared before the District Commission even thereafter, fresh warrant was issued against him and he had been released on security of a bond of Rs. 75,000/-. However, he had omitted to appear in court thereafter and fresh warrant has been issued against him. It is to escape from all these proceedings that the present appeal is filed with this petition for condonation of delay.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the 1st respondent who appeared in person. We have carefully gone through the affidavit filed in support of this petition as well as the objections filed by the 1st respondent. Absolutely no tenable explanation has been put forward to explain the inordinate delay of 490 days that is sought to be condoned. He has stated that he had met with an accident due to the Covid Pandemic situation. The statements in the affidavit do not make sense because it does not stand to reason how a person could have met with an accident due to the Covid pandemic situation. A reading of the affidavit betrays the callous and negligent manner in which the same has been drafted and filed. Absolutely no care or attention has been bestowed in drafting the affidavit. Consequently, it is absolutely inadequate and incapable of conveying any bonafides or truth. The objections filed by the 1st respondent as a layman is more trustworthy and believable. The petitioner is also guilty of suppression of material facts. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the delay in this case has been satisfactorily explained.
For the above reasons, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
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. 173/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 19.04.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 109/2019 of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Cherry Thomas, S/o P.J. Thomas, Pattathil Bhavan, Vadakkekara, Chettipuzha, Veroor, Kottayam-686 104.
(By Adv. Nemom A. Siraj)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- K. Shambu, S/o late Kochukrishnan Nair, Kannamma Nilayam, T.C. 27/1002, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.
(Party in person)
- The Managing Director, M/s Sethiya Solvents and Chemicals, No. 1217, Sukrawarpet, Coimbatore-641 001, Tamil Nadu Code 33.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
Petition for condonation of delay dismissed. Therefore this appeal is dismissed.
The amount of statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to him, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
