Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/578

p k sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

sachitananda institute of medical sciences - Opp.Party(s)

p krishnankutty nair

18 Dec 2014

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.578/2014

JUDGMENT DATED : 18.12.2014

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.76/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod order dated : 17.11.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                        : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS               : MEMBER

 

 

P.K.Sinha,

Chairman and Managing Director,

Picks Medical System Ltd,

Corporate Office,

R/264, TTCMDC RABALE,

Navi Mumbai – 400701                                   APPELLANT

 

(By Adv.Sri.P.Rahim,

(By Adv.Sri.P.Krishnankutty Nair &

(By Adv.Sri.Mohandas)

 

 

VS

 

 

 

Satchidananda Institute of

Medical Science,

Anandashramam.P.O                                        RESPONDENT

Kanhangad,

Kasaragode District,

Rep.by its Chairman

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            Appellant was the opposite party in CC.No.76/2010 in the CDRF, kasargode. The complainant therein approached the Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service in connection with the medical equipment supplied. The appellant remained exparte before the consumer forum which passed an order to replace the  medical equipment and pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- with 9% interest. The appellant challenged the exparte order before this commission in Appeal No.690/2011. this commission by judgment dated 07.01.2012 ordered thus '" in the circumstances and in view of the fact the order can not be treated as considered one, same is set aside on condition that the appellant / opposite party pay a sum of Rs.8000/- towards cost to the complainant or deposit the same before the Forum which can be withdrawn by the complainant. On payment of cost the forum will permit the opposite party to contest the matter and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the forum below on 23.02.2012." In EA.No.83/2010 seeking execution of the order in the complaint, the appellant herein then filed memo stating that he in compliance of the order of this commission in Appeal No.690/2011 had deposited Rs.8000/- on 12.09.2014 and sought to set aside, the order of the consumer forum and permit him to contest the case. He also sought that the warrant issued against him be recalled. Thereupon the consumer forum passed the order impugned in this appeal after hearing both sides. The consumer forum finding the attempt of the appellant as an abuse of process of court dismissed his prayers. the said order is sought to be assailed in this appeal.

          The learned counsel for the appellant was heard to decide whether the appeal is to be admitted or not. Admittedly, deposit of Rs.8000/- which was the condition precedent to permit the appellant to contest the complaint before the forum was made around two and a half years after this commission passed judgment in appeal no.690/2011 on 07.01.2012. The first argument advanced was that since this commission failed to specify the date before which deposit of Rs.8000/- was to be made, the appellant was justified in making deposit of the amount two and half years later. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant conceded that when an order does not specify particular date for compliance it should be complied within a reasonable time. Two and half years delay by any standard is not reasonable. Attempt was made to argue that the manager of the opposite party was laid up due to some serious disease. This remains an allegation for the sake of allegation. The fact also remains that the appellant is the manager of a firm and the question remains how the firm was  managed if he was laid up as a matter of fact. So the appellant purposefully delayed compliance of the order of this commission. The initial failure to appear before the consumer forum must also have been in all probability part of the design to delay, the final disposal for the consumer complaint. The appellant may be justified in being smart but can not be over smart. The clear attempt is to delay disposal of the case and as observed by the consumer forum amounts to abuse of process of court. It is also an attempt to make mockery of the order of this commission in his earlier appeal. The attempt is to take advantage of an indulgence shown by this commission relying on an inadvertent omission to specify the date of compliance. This commission had directed the parties to appear pursuant to the judgment before the consumer forum on 23.02.2012. That itself shows that this commission wanted the appellant to appear promptly and comply with the order. He failed to comply with the order  so long without obvious reason. So the complainant failed to make out reasonable case to admit the appeal for hearing. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

A.RADHA                     : MEMBER

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

 

BE/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSALCOMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.578/2014

JUDGMENT

DATED : 18.12.2014

 

                                                                                                  BE/