KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 168/2023 in APPEAL No. 58/2023
ORDER DATED: 11.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 186/2021 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Amma Boat Yard and Fibor Work, Anchuthengu P.O.-695 309, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Proprietor Antoney, S/o Devadasan, Mooppakkudy, Anchuthengu, Anchuthengu Village, Chirayinkeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Heartha C. Pereira)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Nandakumar K.T.K., S/o Ramadasan, Fishermen, Cottance, Thazhemuniyil P.O., Kannookkara (via), Madappally, Vadakara Taluk, Kozhikode.
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the appellant in C.C. No. 58 of 2023 to condone the delay of 394 days caused in filing the appeal. The petitioner was the opposite party in C.C. No. 186 of 2021 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (will be referred as District Commission). On 11.01.2022 the District Commission had allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- along with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- towards costs within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order with a default clause to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
2. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a fibreglass boat from the petitioner on 30.09.2019 by paying Rs. 94,500/-. At the time of purchase the petitioner promised that the boat could be used for a period of 20 years and if any defect arises it would be rectified by the petitioner free of cost. According to the complainant a fibreglass boat can be used for a period of 15 years. But after one month from the date of purchase the complainant noticed bubbles appearing at the bottom of the boat which fact was informed to the opposite party. He assured that a technical expert will be sent to look into the matter, but nobody was sent to rectify the defect. At last, after a month the opposite party made arrangements to repair the boat. The complainant could not use the boat for one month. The opposite party collected Rs. 1,000/- as repair charges which is against the promise made by the opposite party. But after 6 months the same problem again arose and the complainant was unable to use the boat. He had to spend an additional amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the repair of the boat. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. The case of the petitioner is that in June 2021 he had received a notice from the District Commission. He had engaged Advocate Eugine Pereira for conducting the case on his behalf who promised him that he would look after the proceedings. But on 17.01.2023 the petitioner was arrested and brought before the District Commission in execution of the order passed by the Commission. When enquiry was made with his lawyer the appellant came to know that his lawyer had passed away in November 2021 due to throat cancer. The counsel was undergoing treatment from 2020 onwards and hence he could not appear before the District Commission. The petitioner came to know about the order passed by the District Commission only on 17.01.2023 and he had not received any notice in respect the Execution Proceedings. Therefore the petitioner would seek for an order for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
4. The complainant entered appearance and filed objection that the petitioner has no sufficient reason to condone the delay. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court reported in “New India Assurance Company Limited versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Limited” to the effect that the petitioner has no right to contest the matter.
5. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and the Order passed by the District Commission. The order was passed on 11.01.2022. The notice issued by the District Commission was served on the petitioner on 16.07.2021. The contention of the petitioner is that he came to know about the order passed by the District Commission only on 17.01.2023. There is no case for the petitioner that he had given instructions to his lawyer for filing version before the District Commission. So it is obvious that the petitioner had failed to file version before the District Commission within the statutory period. The Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 has declared in categorical terms that the District Commission has no authority to receive version after the statutory period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Since the statutory period has already elapsed no purpose will be served in admitting the appeal by condoning the delay. There was grave dereliction on the part of the petitioner in not pursuing action by contacting his lawyer for filing the version. The facts sworn in the affidavit filed by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner had never contacted his lawyer till he was arrested by the police in the execution proceedings. The petitioner has no satisfactory grounds for condoning the delay. Hence we are not inclined to allow the request.
In the result, the petition is 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. 58/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 11.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 186/2021 of CDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Amma Boat Yard and Fibor Work, Anchuthengu P.O.-695 309, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Proprietor Antoney, S/o Devadasan, Mooppakkudy, Anchuthengu, Anchuthengu Village, Chirayinkeezhu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Heartha C. Pereira)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Nandakumar K.T.K., S/o Ramadasan, Fishermen, Cottance, Thazhemuniyil P.O., Kannookkara (via), Madappally, Vadakara Taluk, Kozhikode.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No 168/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
