KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 928/2024 in APPEAL No. 452/2024
ORDER DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 333/2022 of DCDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002 represented through its Authorized Representative.
(By Adv.Reena Williams)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- P.P. Balakrishnan, PMT Tourist Home, Near Civil Station Gate, Up Hill, Malappuram, Malappuram-676 505.
- Gopal Pillai -VP, the General Manager, Amazon Online Shopping, Amazon India Registered Office, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, #26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram (W), Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 055.
- Raunak Jagasia, the Director, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #124, Maker Chambers III, 12th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 021.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 175 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended that the delay occurred due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
3. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondents.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. 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.
6. 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”.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. It is stated in the petition that the delay of 175 days was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. However, it is not stated about any particular reason for the delay in filing the appeal.
10. In order to condone the delay, there must be sufficient reason. However, in this case, apart from stating that due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, there occurred a delay of 175 days, no special reason has been stated for the delay. Having gone through the contentions, we are of the considered view that there is no sufficient reason to condone the inordinate delay of 175 days in filing the appeal.
In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
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. 452/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 04.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 333/2022 of DCDRC, Malappuram)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 20th to 24th Floor, Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, DLF PH-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002 represented through its Authorized Representative.
(By Adv. Reena Williams)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- P.P. Balakrishnan, PMT Tourist Home, Near Civil Station Gate, Up Hill, Malappuram, Malappuram-676 505.
- Gopal Pillai -VP, the General Manager, Amazon Online Shopping, Amazon India Registered Office, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, #26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram (W), Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 055.
- Raunak Jagasia, the Director, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #124, Maker Chambers III, 12th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 021.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 928/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the 1st respondent, 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
