KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

I.A.No.1147/2024 in APPEAL No.585/2024

ORDER DATED: 21.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.479/2016 of the DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

(by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 1263 days in filing the appeal.

          2.  It is contended that the order in C.C.No.479/2016 was pronounced on 14.01.2021 and the appeal ought to have been filed on 28.02.2021.

          3. The petitioner believed that since there was no privity of contract with the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the petitioner.  However, when he received notice from the District Commission in the execution proceedings, he came to know about the order impugned. Thereafter, he contacted his lawyer in March 2023.  The lawyer advised him to file the appeal.  In order to file an appeal, an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) had to be deposited before this Commission.  The petitioner is a pensioner and hence he found it difficult to raise the money.  However, he filed the appeal after raising the money.  Therefore, there was a delay of 1263 days in filing the appeal.

          4.  It is further contended that the petitioner is entitled to get exemption for 365 days due to Covid-19 pandemic granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

          5.  Heard.

6.  The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.  

7.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263 :2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-

           “5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora”.

           8.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court,  held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that thecourts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.  

9.  The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs. MS. Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.

 10.  The National Commission in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the appeal is filed beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain as to what sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching the court within the period of limitation.  The National Commission further observed that adequate and enough reason must be there for condoning the delay.  In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the appeal.

11.  In Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the State Commission dismissed the application, for condonation of delay of 142 days, filed on the ground that the records were misplaced by the junior advocate of the counsel concerned. The National Commission did not interfere with the said order.

12.  In the light of the above legal position, we have to test whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.

          13.  The petitioner would contend that the appeal ought to have been filed on 28.02.2021. The petitioner would further contend that the petitioner is entitled to get exemption for the period from 28.02.2021 to 28.02.2022, due to Covid-19 pandemic, as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the petitioner has to explain the reason for the further delay of more than 2 years and 5 months in filing the appeal.  

14.  Apart from stating that the petitioner came to know about the order impugned only when he received the notice from the District Commission in the execution proceedings, the petitioner did not state as to when he received the notice. It is not contended that he did not receive the notice from the District Commission in the original proceedings. It is contended that the petitioner believed that since there was no privity of contract with the complainant, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief from the petitioner.  Therefore, he did not contest the case before the District Commission.

              15.  It is contended that he contacted his lawyer in March 2023.  The lawyer advised him to file the appeal.  In order to file the appeal, an amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) had to be deposited before this Commission.  The petitioner is a pensioner and a senior citizen and hence he found it difficult to raise the money.  However, he filed the appeal after raising the money.  Therefore, there was a delay of 1263 days in filing the appeal.

16.  This is a case where the petitioner did not appear before the District Commission and contest the case despite the receipt of notice.  Even after granting exemption for the period from 28.02.2021 to 28.02.2022, the petitioner has to explain the cause of delay from 28.02.2022 to 16.08.2024, which comes to more than two years and five months.  However, he could not satisfactorily explain the reason for the said delay.  Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not sufficient to condone the delay of 1263 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in this case.  In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

In the result, this application stands dismissed.

SL

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.585/2024

JUDGEMENT DATED: 21.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.479/2016 of the DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1147/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as time barred.

The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants, on proper acknowledgment.