KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

            VAZHUTHACAUD  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                          

                                     IA.680/09 IN A.310/09

                                  ORDER DATED 18.6.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                         --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR               --  MEMBER

Thrissur Corporation

Reptd by its Secretary.                                 --  PETITIONER

   (By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair)

                   Vs.

1.       Natarajan.S.

          S/0 M.V.Subramania Iyer

          29/742, Shornur Road, Thiruvambady,

          Thrissur.                                            --  RESPONDENTS

2.       Thrissur Corporation,

          Water Supply Department

          Reptd. by Asst.Executive Engineer.

                                                           ORDER

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This petition for condonation of delay was restored to the file by virtue of the order dated 3.6.10  passed on the Restoration petition 117/09 (IA.117/09). 

 2. Heard the petitioner.  This petition is filed for condonation of delay of 256 days in preferring the appeal FA.310/09.  The only reason stated for condonation of delay is that   copy of the order passed by the Forum below was misplaced.  Even if the order under challenge was misplaced, there cannot be such a delay of 256 days in preferring the  appeal.  It is very easy and convenient for a party to state that the document was misplaced and could not be traced out.  So, the reason stated for condonation of delay cannot be considered as convincing and acceptable.  We do not find any reasonable ground to allow this petition for condonation  delay of 256 days.  The aforesaid delay can be treated as inordinate   and there is no justifiable ground to condone the aforesaid delay of 256 days.

          3. More over, a perusal of the impugned order passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.489/05 would also make it clear that the demand for arrears of water charge amounting to Rs.7,795/- was made without any supporting material.  It is also to be noted that the aforesaid demand was made after a period of 6 years.  The Forum below considered the documentary evidence available on record and rightly allowed the complaint in OP. 489/05.  Thus, in all respects, there is no merit in  the present petition for condonation of delay and also  in the present appeal 310/09.  Hence, this petition is dismissed.

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER