KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 839/2023 in APPEAL No. 421/2023
ORDER DATED: 23.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 126/2021 of CDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
Sanu A.G., S/o Gangadharan, Proprietor, Bhavani Constructions Corporation, S.N. Puram P.O., Near Kanichikulangara Block Office, Cherthala, Alappuzha.
(By Adv. R. Ram Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sapru P.V., S/o Viswambharan, Puthuvalthara, Uzhuva Muri, Vayakar East Village, Kalavancodam P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.
(By Adv. C.S. Hemalal & John Thomas Arakal)
ORDER
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an application filed by the appellant in Appeal No. 421/2023 to condone the delay of 480 days in filing the appeal. The facts about the petition in short are stated below:
The petitioner was the opposite party in C.C. No. 126/2021 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity). On 06.11.2021 the District Commission passed an order by setting the petitioner exparte on the reason that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice issued by the District Commission.
2. On 14.01.2022 the petitioner filed an application for reviewing the ex-parte order as R.P. No. 03/2022 before the District Commission. The review petition was dismissed by the District Commission on 16.04.2022. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court as WP(C) No. 3663/2022. As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court dated 22.02.2023 the petitioner filed I.A. No.80/2023 before the District Commission which also was dismissed as per the order dated 17.03.2023. The petitioner was prosecuting the matter with due diligence and bonafide belief by approaching various authorities which were not having jurisdiction and a considerable time was consumed for this which led to the delay. Hence he would seek for condonation of the delay occurred in filing the petition.
3. The respondent entered appearance and filed objections raising the following contentions:-
The petitioner does not have any cogent explanation with respect to the delay. The plea of the petitioner that he had approached various authorities having no jurisdiction is a clear indication with regard to the lack of bonafides. The stand taken by the petitioner that the notice was not served on him is incorrect as he had refused to accept the notice. The petitioner had received the demand notice and the notice in the E.P issued in the same address. The only intention of the petitioner is to drag the matter and that is why he filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order before the District Commission by fully knowing that the District Commission has no authority to allow the request. The respondent would seek for dismissal of the application.
4. Heard the counsels for both sides, perused the records produced in support of this petition.
5. From the stand taken by the petitioner it is vivid that the petitioner was filing petitions before various authorities which had no jurisdiction to consider his request. So the absence of bonafides on the part of the petitioner in protracting the matter to the maximum possible means is an aspect which would work out against him. When condonation of delay is sought for, it is the duty of the petitioner to convince us that he has got valid explanation with regard to the delay. Initially the petitioner had refused to accept the notice issued by the District Commission. Sec.65(3) of the Consumer Protection Act stipulates that if the notice issued is returned with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee that the opposite party or agent had refused to take delivery of the postal article when tendered to him the District Commission shall declare that the notice has been served. So it is clear that the petitioner was served with a notice and he did not file version within 45 days as contemplated in Section 38(3) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Commission has no authority to accept the version filed after 45 days from the date of receipt of notice as interpreted 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. If the petitioner was unable to file version within the stipulated time limit the District Commission is prevented from receiving it later. So there is no meaning in allowing the petition at this juncture.
6. Apart from that the petitioner had no satisfactory explanation with respect to the delay caused in filing the appeal. On the whole this application lacks bonafides in all respects and hence we are not inclined to condone the delay.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 421/2023
JUDGMENT DATED: 23.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 126/2021 of CDRC, Alappuzha)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Sanu A.G., S/o Gangadharan, Proprietor, Bhavani Constructions Corporation, S.N. Puram P.O., Near Kanichikulangara Block Office, Cherthala, Alappuzha.
(By Adv. R. Ram Mohan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sapru P.V., S/o Viswambharan, Puthuvalthara, Uzhuva Muri, Vayakar East Village, Kalavancodam P.O., Cherthala, Alappuzha.
(By Adv. C.S. Hemalal & John Thomas Arakal)
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal has been filed after elapsing the period prescribed. The petition filed as I.A. No. 839/2023 for the condonation of delay stands dismissed. So the appeal is also dismissed.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal is ordered to be refunded on proper acknowledgment.
AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb