KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 1151/2023 in APPEAL No. 563/2023
ORDER DATED: 16.02.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 170/2012 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- Assistant Secretary, Electricity Section, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur-680 001.
- Thrissur Corporation represented by its Secretary, Thrissur-680 001.
(By Advs. Abdulla N.M. & Manu Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.A. Joy, Mangan House, East Fort, Thrissur-680 001.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
This is a petition seeking condonation of a delay of 406 days in filing this appeal. According to the affidavit filed in support of this petition, earlier the case before the District Commission was being conducted by Adv. Vipin Chacko. He was removed by the Corporation and the case was being conducted directly by the Corporation through its legal officers. But after 16.08.2018 it is stated that no notice was received from the District Commission. The final order was pronounced by the District Commission on 16.07.2021, allowing the complaint. No copy of the order was also received by the appellant, it is contended. When notice in the Execution Petition was received they filed a copy application and obtained a copy of the order. This appeal has been filed thereafter, upon obtaining a legal opinion to do so. Therefore, it is contended that the delay is neither wilful nor deliberate.
2. This petition is opposed by the respondent who has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the delay is more than two years and that no sufficient reason has been shown in the affidavit to condone the inordinate delay.
3. We have heard the respective counsel. We have also perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the objections filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the counsel who was appearing on behalf of the appellant had been removed by the Corporation Council and thereafter the case was being conducted by them directly. According to the affidavit no intimation was received by them after 16.08.2018. It is trite that intimation from the District Commission would be received only once, which is after the complaint was admitted. It is not in dispute that such an intimation had been received from the District Commission and the petitioner had appeared through a lawyer. But later on the said lawyer had been removed and the case was being conducted directly by the appellant. It was therefore incumbent on the appellant to follow the progress of the case by collecting the dates to which the case had been posted. There is no explanation as to why they had not followed the progress of the case after 16.08.2018. The District Commission cannot be blamed for not having intimated the posting dates after 16.08.2018. It is obvious that the complainant had been diligently following the progress of the case until its final disposal. Therefore, if the posting dates had not been ascertained by the appellant, it only shows the negligent manner in which the proceedings were followed by the appellant. The said explanation in the affidavit is not sufficient to explain the inordinate delay which is more than two years in filing this appeal. We are not satisfied that the delay has been sufficiently explained. Therefore, this petition fails and is accordingly 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. 563/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 16.02.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 170/2012 of DCDRC, Thrissur)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Assistant Secretary, Electricity Section, Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur-680 001.
- Thrissur Corporation represented by its Secretary, Thrissur-680 001.
(By Advs. Abdulla N.M. & Manu Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M.A. Joy, Mangan House, East Fort, Thrissur-680 001.
(By Adv. G.S. Kalkura)
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 appellants shall be refunded to them, on proper acknowledgment.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
