KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 646/2023 in APPEAL No. 328/2023
ORDER DATED: 26.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 318/2020 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Pradeep V., Elampadathu Padeettathil, Peringala P.O., Kayamkulam, Alappuzha-690 559.
(By Adv.Omar Salim and Adv. Ram Kiran R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Reliance Centre, South Wing, 4th Floor, Western Express Highway, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 055.
- The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., I & II Floor, Vishnu Building, K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavantra, Cochin, Ernakulam-682 020.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended that the petitioner received copy of order dated 06.05.2002 passed by the District Commission on 10.10.2022. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 09.11.2022. However, the petitioner was trying to find out a suitable advocate to file the appeal. Finally, the present counsel was appointed to prepare the appeal memorandum. At that time, the case bundle were not handed over by the counsel who had appeared before the District Commission. After receiving the case bundle, the petitioner contacted the present counsel. Then the present counsel asked the petitioner to come to Thiruvananthapuram to sign the appeal memorandum and the vakalath. The petitioner was under ayurvedic treatment for back pain from 07.12.2022 to 10.05.2023. The certificate issued in this regard is produced as Annexure A1. In the said circumstances, there occurred a delay of 196 days in filing the appeal.
3. The respondents filed objection strongly opposing the application.
4. Heard.
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 Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy(Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.
8. 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.
9. The National Commission 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The petitioner would contend that he should have filed the appeal on or before 09.11.2022. However, the petitioner was trying to find out a suitable advocate to file the appeal. Thereafter, he approached the present counsel. After that, the petitioner was under Ayurvedic treatment for the period from 07.12.2022 to 10.05.2023, for which the petitioner produced Annexure A1 certificate. Annexure A1 would show that it was not a certificate issued by any doctor. The name of the person, who signed the certificate, is also not seen in Annexure A1. The period of treatment is also not mentioned in Annexure A1. Therefore, Annexure A1 is of no use to prove the contention of the petitioner that he was under treatment from 07.12.2022 to 10.05.2023.
13. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not sufficient to condone the delay of 196 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in this case. In the said circumstances, we are not inclined to condone the delay.
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. 328/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 26.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 318/2020 of DCDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Pradeep V., Elampadathu Padeettathil, Peringala P.O., Kayamkulam, Alappuzha-690 559.
(By Adv.Omar Salim and Adv. Ram Kiran R.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Reliance Centre, South Wing, 4th Floor, Western Express Highway, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 055.
- The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., I & II Floor, Vishnu Building, K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavantra, Cochin, Ernakulam-682 020.
(By Adv. Sreevaraham G. Satheesh)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 646/2023, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
