HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 19 Mar 2010
ORDER
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25.2.2009 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, the State Commission) in original complaint No. 88 of 2002. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 herein seeking compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/appellant in installing machinery and equipment and alleging several defects after the machinery were put into operation. Having regard to the entirety of the respective pleas and the material produced before the State Commission, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint and has directed the opposite party/appellant to pay a total compensation of Rs. 9 lakh viz. 5 lakh towards deficiency in service in causing delay in installing and commissioning of the machinery and equipment, and Rs. 4 lakh on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party/appellant, with interest @12% per annum from the date of default till payment. 2. The appeal has been filed after undue delay and an application for condonation of delay of 338 days has been filed alongwith appeal. However, the office on computation has reported that in fact the delay in filing the appeal is of 341 days. Before we proceed to consider on the question of entertaining the appeal on merits, we have heard the -3- learned counsel for the appellant on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. In the condonation application, the only ground set up by the appellant is that after the order was passed by the State Commission, the appellants were in touch with the counsel in Delhi to file the appeal before this Commission, which, however, could not materialize and there was difficulty in traveling the vast distance between Kerala to Delhi. In our view, the grounds set up are simply vague and bald statement of the appellant do not inspire confidence as the appellant, which is a limited company, could not avail the services of a counsel to file the appeal in this Commission if they had sincerely and seriously made such an attempt. In our view, the reasons do not afford sufficient ground for condonation of undue delay of 341 days in filing the present appeal. We, therefore, decline the application for condonation of delay. 3. Even then we have considered the matter and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; the evidence and material on record, in our view, the order passed by the State Commission is quite justified and calls for no interference by this Commission. The amount of compensation so awarded also does not appear to be excessive. The State Commission has already restricted the payment of interest to the period from the date of the receipt of the order so passed by the State Commission and has not related it back from the date of filing of the complaint, which is usually done in such cases. -4- 4. In our view, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed on both the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER ......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
