Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the R.C owner of a permit carriage No.KL 12/A 4500 which is hypothecated to the 1st Opposite Party. The hypothecation of the vehicle is entered in Registration certificate. The request of the Complainant to get the clearance certificate after the payment of the entire loan amount on 14.2.2002 was not treated positively. Meanwhile the Complainant approached the Honourable High Court and a writ petition No. W.P.(C) 35092/05 <br /> was filed and the renewal of the permit was effected upon the order of the Honourable High <br /> - 2 -<br /> Court. The hypothecation endorsement was tried to be canceled and request was made before the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant is filed for an order to issue the clearance certificate of the said vehicle, to cancel the higher purchase endorsement and the the direction is to be given to the 2nd Opposite Party along with the cost and compensation to the Complainant. <br /> <br /> The complaint was taken in to file unnoticed by the delay. The Opposite Parties were issued notice and they had not appeared or no version filed. Hence the Opposite Parties were declared exparte. The Complainant filed I.A. 168/08 to condone the delay of 6 years and one month. The reason shown for the condonation of delay of 6 years and one month are not supported by any evidence on producing documents. I.A 168/08 is dismissed on ground not producing substantiate and sufficient reason to condone the delay. <br /> <br /> Hence there is no scope to continue the complaint without condoning the delay, the complaint also stands dismissed.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of June 2008.<br />