KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A. NO. 1107/2010 IN APPEAL 541/2010

ORDER DATED 16.3.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :  MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR          :  MEMBER 

APPELLANT

       Shaji Joseph,

       S/o Joseph, Mazhuvancheri House,

       Mayilampully, Palakkad

               ( Rep. by  Adv. Sri.Dhananjayan)

                                                Vs

RESPONDENT

      K.J. Francis,

      Proprietor,

      CASINO Caterers,   Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad

                      ( Rep. by  Adv. Smt. Suja.R.)

ORDER

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

          This application is filed to condone the delay of 400 days in filing the appeal.  The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed by the appellant/complainant is that  though the copy of the impugned order received on 17.8.2009 the same and other documents were misplaced  by him and hence he could not contact his counsel to give instruction to file the appeal in time.  It is also mentioned that he was laid up with rheumatic arthritis and the missing documents were traced out recently.  Hence the delay is not willful or intentional. 

          The application was opposed by the respondent stating that non sufficient and convincing reasons were shown in the affidavit to condone the delay.  It is argued that the long delay of 400days in filing the appeal without cogent reasons can not be condoned.  The petitioner has stated that he was laid up with rheumatic arthritis and that is one of the reasons in not filing the appeal in time.  But the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate or any other supporting documents to show that he was undergoing treatment apart from the bare statement that he was undergone treatment.  In short, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for the  dismissal of the petition with compensatory costs.

          On a careful examination we find that the petition to condone the delay of 400 days is filed without any material to support the case that the appellant was undergone treatment and that was one of the reason for not filing the appeal in time.  It is found that when delay has to be condoned.   There has to be sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. 

`        We find that the delay of 400 days has not been properly explained and the reasons mentioned for condoning the delay is not convincing. 

In the result, the application for condoning the delay is dismissed and hence the appeal is also dismissed.  

                            VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      ;      MEMBER

                            S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR            :     MEMBER

ST