KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 468/2023 in APPEAL No. 227/2023
ORDER DATED: 20.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 113/2012 of CDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Rahul Ganesh, S/o S. Ganesh, Mannankattil House, Poomala Post, Sulthan Bathery, Pin-673 592 (Proprietor, Rohini Sales and Service, Building No. 24/1681, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.
(By Adv. P. Raj Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.P. Varghese, S/o Paulose, Panakkal House, Chomadi, Kariambadi P.O., Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District.
(By Adv. Manjusha K.)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the opposite party in CC No.113/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Wayanad (referred as District Commission in short) to condone the delay of 1804 days in filing the appeal.
2. On 30.05.2012 the District Commission had passed an order against the opposite party directing him to install a coffee roaster machine with motor (Deluxe model) in the premises of the complainant on completion of repainting and reconditioning. If the opposite party fails to repair and give back the machinery to the complainant, the cost of the said machinery Rs. 4,00,000/- was also ordered to be given to the complainant along with costs of Rs. 5,000/- within a month.
3. According to the petitioner his father was the sole opposite party. His father was running a workshop with a welding unit and was not an authorized workshop of the Coffee Roaster Machine. The father of the petitioner had passed away on 30.05.2012. The petitioner was doing graduation and post graduation during 2011 to 2016 in Tamil Nadu and Bangalore. The petitioner came to know about the order on 17.02.2018, on receipt of the notice in the Execution Petition as EA. No.16/2018. The petitioner had entrusted his brother to see what could be done in the matter. He contacted the complainant who opined that he wanted the machine to be repaired. Based on this reply they had visited Karnataka and could assemble the parts of the machine by spending a sum of Rs. 51,493/-. After the repairs the complainant was appraised about the effort and the expenses incurred for it. But the complainant refused to take back the machine. There is no willful lapses on the part of the petitioner in preferring the appeal in time. Hence the petitioner would seek for condonation of the delay. Hence the petition.
4. The complainant filed objection by disputing the bonafides in the cause stated in the petition. The opposite party was personally served with notice who failed to appear before the District Commission and resultantly the ex-parte order was passed. After passing the order the opposite party had approached the complainant and assured that the machine will be handed over to him within a month. In 2016 the original opposite party expired and the execution petition was filed in 2018 and the petitioner was served with notice on 17.02.2018. Nothing prevented the petitioner from filing an appeal. Without preferring appeal the appellant filed a Revision Petition before this Commission as R.P. No. 79/22 which was dismissed by this Commission as per the order dated 05.12.2022. The only intention of the petitioner is to drag the proceedings and hence he requests for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioner as well as that of the respondent. The facts narrated in the petition would clearly show that the petitioner was fully aware about the order in 2018. His predecessor in interest was served with a notice who refused to appear and hence the order was passed ex-parte. The direction was to comply with the order within 30 days. Now a period of more than a decade has been elapsed. The petitioner had approached this Commission as Revision Petition No.79/2022 challenging the correctness of the order passed by the District Commission in the process of execution of the order in C.C. No.h 113/2012 on 05.12.22. Thereafter the petitioner remained silent for more than 6 months. On going through the records it is evident that the petitioner has no satisfactory reason for the delay occurred. In view of the judicial interpretation given by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757 it is not possible for the District Commission to receive the version after the expiry of 45 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In a subsequent ruling the Apex court clarified that the direction contained in Hilly Multipurpose is applicable to the earlier cases also in “M/s Daddys Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs Manisha Bhargava”. So no purpose will be served in condoning the delay. The materials on record would convincingly prove that the only intention of the petitioner is to protract the execution proceedings of an order passed a decade ago. There is total absence of bonafides in the facts stated in this petition and hence the prayer is only to be dismissed.
In the result this petition is dismissed.
AJITH KUMARD.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 227/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 20.07.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 113/2012 of CDRC, Wayanad)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Rahul Ganesh, S/o S. Ganesh, Mannankattil House, Poomala Post, Sulthan Bathery, Pin-673 592 (Proprietor, Rohini Sales and Service, Building No. 24/1681, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.
(By Adv. P. Raj Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.P. Varghese, S/o Paulose, Panakkal House, Chomadi, Kariambadi P.O., Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District.
(By Adv. Manjusha K.)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No. 468/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
AJITH KUMARD.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
