Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/77/2019

P.Jayakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maruti Suziki India Ltd,Rep by its Director - Opp.Party(s)

P.Jayakumar

19 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chenn-ai600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.M.P No. 05/2021 in CC.NO.77/2019

 

DATED THIS DAY TUESDAY THE 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,

4,SH 113, Tirumurthy Nagar,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-600 034.                                           ….  Petitioner/1^st Opposite party

 

…Vs…

 

1. P.Jayakumar

Old No.225 A, New No.70, Anna street,

TV nagar,

          Aynavaram, Chennai-23                            …. 1^st  Respondent/Complainant

 

2. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

Rep by its Director,

Block No. J-16, 3^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar(East),

           Chennai-102                                    …. 2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for Petitioner/1^st Opposite party     : S. Ramasubramaniam and Associates

 

Counsel for  1^st  Respondent/Complainant  : Party in Person

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU: G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,

This petition is filed by the petitioner/ 1^st opposite party to condone the delay of 496 days in filing the set aside the application against the Order dated:22.08.2019.

1. Petition Averment in brief:-

The present complaint was listed for hearing on 21.08.2019 and thereafter adjourned to 22.08.2019 for appearance and filing written version of the opposite parties the petitioner contended that it has not received any notice from this commission to appear on 22.08.2019 and only july 2020 the petitioner came to know about the exparte order passed from the 2^nd respondent and further contended that due to lockdown/restrictions imposed by the Government on account of Covid-19 the petitioner was not able to file setaside petition in time and hence there is delay of 496 days in filing setaside petition against the order dated 22.08.2019 the delay neither willful nor wanton and filed this application along with setaside petition and written version.

2. Counter filed by 1^st respondent/complainant in Brief:

                   The notice sent from this commission was received by the petitioner but the petitioner intentionally not appear before this commission  for the reasons best known to it.  Further the reasons stated for the delay in filing setaside petition is false.  The lockdown restrictions have been lifted in the month of June 2020 and this petition is filed false averment and not disclosing the correct facts and further contended by relying upon The judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance company VS Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt.Ltd., and contended that delay in excess of period shown in Sec.13(1)a read with Sec13(2)(a) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 could not have been condoned by the district commission. And prayed to dismissed the petition.

3. Point for Consideration:-

1. Whether the petition is to be allowed or not?

4. Point No.1

The petitioner is the 1^st opposite party the 1^st respondent is complainant.  The 2^nd respondent /2^nd opposite party has not filed counter in this C.M.P.  The petitioner herein prayed to condone the delay of 496 days in filing the set aside petition against the order dated:22.08.2019 by stating that notice was not received from the commission and hence the petitioner was set Ex-parte and the delay in filing petition is due to the lockdown restriction imposed by the Government due to Covid-19.  The 1^st respondent in the counter opposed the application by stating that notice was received by the petitioner but he wantonly absented and not appeared on 22.08.2019 and further contended the reasons stated for codoning the delay is false one.   It is found that notice in the main complaint was served on the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party on 16.08.2019 and hence the petitioner has knowledge about the hearing on 22.08.2019 the contention to the contrary is incorrect.  For non appearance of the petitioner it was set Ex-parte on 22.08.2019 but this application  is filed on 30.12.2020 by alleging that due to Covid-19 restrictions the petitioner could not file application in time. Even during the Lockdown period the petitioner was having opportunity to file application through E-filing that was done by the petitioner. There is no valid reason stated in the affidavit for condoning the delay of 496 days in filing Set aside petition.  Each day delay was not properly explained by the petitioner.   The petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Hence the petition is dismissed. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced by us on this 28^th  day of   June  2022.

 

MEMBER – I             MEMBER – II                                   PRESIDENT