KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 761/2024 in APPEAL No. 367/2024
ORDER DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 10/2023 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI.AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
TVS Motor Company Ltd., Post Box No. 4, Harita, Hosur, Tamil Nadu-635 109 having its registered office at Chaitanya, No. 12, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 006.
(By Adv.Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Krishnamoorthy R., S/o M.S. Raju, Marthandamkari, Muhamma P.O., Alappuzha-688 522.
(By Adv. R. Gireesh Babu)
- Top Heaven, represented by its Manager, AMC 26/694 A, North of Thiruvambady Junction, Alappuzha-688 002.
- Top Heaven Motors, represented by its Manager, Cherthala, Alappuzha-688 524.
- Top Heaven Motors, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Dealer Point, Muhamma, Alappuzha-688 522.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application for condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended that the findings and directions in the order impugned were found to be perverse and lacking clarity, in as much as the stand and position of the petitioner were completely excluded from its purview. However, when the petitioner learnt about the initiation of the execution proceedings against the order impugned, the petitioner tried to get clarification regarding the terms and effect of the order impugned from the District Commission during the execution proceedings. However, no suitable clarification was obtained. Since the petitioner did not get suitable clarification from the District Commission during the execution proceedings, the petitioner opted to file this appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 178 days in filing the appeal.
3. Objection has been filed by the 1st respondent contending that the delay is long and unexplained. There is willful default on the part of the petitioner in not filing the appeal within time. The reasons alleged are not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The decisions cited by the petitioner (AIR 1976 SC 237 and (1998) 7 SCC 123)are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned advocates on both sides have advanced argument supporting their respective contentions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, (AIR 1976 SC 237) and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy ((1998) 7 SCC 123) to support his argument.
7. 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.
8. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra (supra) has no relevance on the facts of this case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy(supra) held in paragraph 13 as hereinbelow:-
“13. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the Court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Court should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a loser and he too would have incurred quite a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when Courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the Court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss”.
9. 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”.
10. 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 thata 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 the courts 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.
11. 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. The National Commission in Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma and another, in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024held 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. 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 contended that the order under appeal lacked clarity and hence the petitioner believed that the said order was not against the petitioner. However, when the petitioner came to know about the execution proceedings, the petitioner approached the District Commission and sought for clarification. Since no clarification was obtained, the petitioner opted to file this appeal. Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioner, we are of the view that the reasons stated by the petitioner arenot sufficient to condonethe delay of 178 days in filing the appeal.That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitionerin this case. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 367/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 10/2023 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
TVS Motor Company Ltd., Post Box No. 4, Harita, Hosur, Tamil Nadu-635 109 having its registered office at Chaitanya, No. 12, Khader Nawaz Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 006.
(By Adv.Narayan R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Krishnamoorthy R., S/o M.S. Raju, Marthandamkari, Muhamma P.O., Alappuzha-688 522.
(By Adv. R. Gireesh Babu)
- Top Heaven, represented by its Manager, AMC 26/694 A, North of Thiruvambady Junction, Alappuzha-688 002.
- Top Heaven Motors, represented by its Manager, Cherthala, Alappuzha-688 524.
- Top Heaven Motors, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Dealer Point, Muhamma, Alappuzha-688 522.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 761/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the 1st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
