KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 543/2024 in APPEAL No. 260/2024
ORDER DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 135/2019 of DCDRC, Idukki)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- New India Assurance Company Ltd., Parakandathil Buildings, Puliyanmala Road, Kattappana, Idukki-685 508.
- New India Assurance Company Ltd., Registered & Head Office, New India Assurance Building, 87 G Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001
Both represented by the Assistant Manager (legal), T.P. Claims Hub, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- M/s Karinellickal Stores, Upputhara, represented by its proprietor Gopi K.M.
- Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
Addl. Respondents:
- Jolly P.K., W/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
- Jobish K.G., S/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
- Joji K.G., S/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
(By Advs. Joju Rajan & Tharun A.G.)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application for condoning the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended that the copy of the order under appeal dated 25.08.2023 was received by the petitioners on 17.11.2023 and hence the appeal ought to have been filed on or before 16.12.2023. The copy of the order and the file were forwarded to the Regional Office, Ernakulam for approval for filing the appeal. The Manager concerned was on leave due to illness. Subsequently, the file was misplaced and the file was received only on 27.04.2024 and hence there was a delay of 135 days in filing the appeal.
3. Objection has been filed by the respondents contending that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the laches and negligence on the part of the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners/appellants did not handle the subject matter diligently.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The learned advocates on both sides have advanced argument supporting their respective contentions.
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 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.
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. The National Commission in Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma and another, 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. 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.
10. 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. In the case on hand, apart from casually contending that the files were misplaced in the Regional Office of the petitioners, it is not stated as to when the files were misplaced. It is also not stated anything about the efforts taken by the petitioners in tracing out the files and filing the appeal on time.
11. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the considered view that the reason stated by the petitioners is not a sufficient reason for condoning the delay of 135 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in this case. For the said reasons, 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. 260/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 135/2019 of DCDRC, Idukki)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT'
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- New India Assurance Company Ltd., Parakandathil Buildings, Puliyanmala Road, Kattappana, Idukki-685 508.
- New India Assurance Company Ltd., Registered & Head Office, New India Assurance Building, 87 G Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001
Both represented by the Assistant Manager (legal), T.P. Claims Hub, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- M/s Karinellickal Stores, Upputhara, represented by its proprietor Gopi K.M.
- Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
Addl. Respondents:
- Jolly P.K., W/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
- Jobish K.G., S/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
- Joji K.G., S/o Gopi K.M., Karinellickal House, Upputhara P.O., Idukki-685 505.
(By Advs. Joju Rajan & Tharun A.G.)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 543/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be refunded to the respondents, 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
