KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 453/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 17.10.2018

(Against the order in C.C. 177/2016 of CDRF, Palakkad)

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                                 : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Owner, Tati Education Centre, Opp: Canara Bank, Agali, Agali Post, Palakkad-678 581, Attappadi.

 (By Adv. K. Dhananjayan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M. Bijukumar, Social Worker, Nattakkallur, Kottathara Post 678 581, Attappadi, Palakkad.                    

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

Opposite party in C.C. No. 177/2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Palakkad, for short the district forum, has filed this appeal with a petition to condone delay of 329 days.  The lower forum by its Order dated 30.05.2017 passed in the complaint directed the appellant/opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 30/- collected as excess with compensation of Rs. 1000/- and cost of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant.  Aggrieved by that Order the above appeal is preferred with petition for condonation of delay.

2.  Notice on delay petition was given to the respondent/complainant.  But after service he has elected to remain absent.

3.  We have considered the merits of the appeal also in examining whether delay sought to be condoned is allowable to entertain the appeal.  Perusing the Order of the lower forum we find that case of the complainant was that excess amount of Rs. 30/- was charged and realized from him for A4 size lamination of death certificate.  He produced materials to show that the charges due thereon was only Rs. 30/-.  Appellant/opposite party has resisted the claim contending that better quality of material was used for lamination of the certificate and they had collected only reasonable sum as due.  The forum below, appreciating the materials produced by both sides finding merit in the case of the complainant, allowed his complaint and directed the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs. 30/- with compensation and cost as indicated above.  We do not find, prima facie, any merit in the challenges canvassed to assail the order of the lower forum.  Over and above we notice that the reasons set out in the affidavit filed by the appellant to explain the delay in filing appeal is not convincing and acceptable.  The case bundle was misplaced while shifting his counsel’s office and it can be traced out at later stage is the cause pleaded for condoning the delay, is the case canvassed.  No affidavit from the counsel whose office was shifted or even from the advocate clerk thereof has been produced.  The inadequate delay in filing the appeal for the reasons attributed to missing of case bundle on shifting of advocate’s office is bereft of any merit and it requires only to be rejected.  We do so. 

The delay condonation petition is rejected and appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                                                                                BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER