Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/122

Thrissur Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Philo Vincent - Opp.Party(s)

B.Vasudevan Nair

23 Apr 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/122
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/11/2006 in Case No. CC 1116/05 of District Trissur)
1. Thrissur Corporation ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Philo Vincent ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENTHONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member
PRESENT :

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

I.A.263/2010 IN APPEAL:122/2010

                                 ORDER DATED:23..04..2010

 

PRESENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

 

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

 

1.Thrissur Corporation,

  R/by its Secretary.

                                                                                                : PETITIONERS

2.The Assistant Secretary,

  Thrissur Corporation.

 

(By adv:Sri.B.Vasudevan Nair)

 

                        Vs.

Philo Vincent,

House No:TV16/866, Christ Nagar,                                    : RESPONDENT

Ollukkara, Thrissur.                          

 

                                       ORDER

 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

 

The delay sought to be condoned is of 1162 days.  The reason mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Secretary of Thrissur Corporation is that he did not receive the free copy of the order.  He applied for an attested copy which he received only on 30/10/2009.  All the same he has sought for condoning the delay of 1162 days.

2. We find that the proposed appellant was represented by a counsel.  Hence there is no reason as to why he did not apply earlier for the copy of the judgment even if the true copy was not received.  We find that the reason mentioned is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay. 

In the result the delay petition is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed.

 

 

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

 

VL.

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 23 April 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT[HONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]Member