KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 1185/2024 in REVIEW APPLICATION No. 38/2024
ORDER DATED: 08.11.2024
(Against the Order in Appeal No. 142/2016)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/REVIEW PETITIONERS:
- The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, (South Malabar Gramin Bank), East Fort Branch, Thrissur represented by Branch Manager.
- Sreenivasan, The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, (South Malabar Gramin Bank), Kalli Branch, Kozhikode.
- The Chairman, Kerala Gramin Bank, (South Malabar Gramin Bank), Head Office, Malappuram.
(By Adv. Gayathri R. Krishnan)
-
COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
- Seena, Kunnathully House, Kuttanellur P.O., Thrissur District.
- K.P. Madhu, Kunnathully House, Kuttanellur P.O., Thrissur District.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 237 days in filing the review application.
2. It is contended by the petitioners that the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution by this Commission on 16.01.2024. The petitioners came to know about the dismissal of the appeal only on 20.04.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners tried to contact the counsel for the petitioners. However, that attempt was proved to be in vain. Finally, the petitioners filed the present application through another counsel. The review application ought to have been filed on 15.02.2024. The reason for the delay is due to the negligence on the part of the counsel with whom the appeal was entrusted by the petitioners.
3. Objection has been filed by the respondents strongly opposing the application.
4. Heard both sides.
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 review application is liable to be condoned or not in this case.
12. The reason stated for the delay is the negligence of the lawyer who handled the case of the petitioners before this Commission. The petitioners were not informed about the order dismissing the appeal by the learned counsel. However, the petitioners came to know about the order on 20.04.2024. This review application was filed by the petitioners on 11.09.2024. Even after learning about the dismissal of the appeal, there was still a delay of nearly five months in filing the review application, which is not seen explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application. Having gone through the relevant inputs, we are satisfied that the reason stated by the petitioners is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 237 days in filing the review application. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioners 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
THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVIEW PETITION No. 38/2024
IN
APPEAL No. 142/2016
ORDER DATED. 08/11/2024
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR. D : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN .K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, ( South Malabar Gramin Bank)
East fort branch, Thrissur represented by Branch Manager.
- Sreenivasan, The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, South Malabar Gramin
Bank, Kallai Branch, Kozhikode.
- The Chairman, Kerala Gramin Bank, South Malabar Gramin bank, Head office,
Malappuram.
( By Adv. Gayathri R. Krishnan )
V/s
COUNTER PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
- Seena, Kunnathully House, Kuttanellur P.O, Thrissur District,
- K. P. Madhu, Kunnathully house, Kuttanellur P.O, Thrissur District.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of the delay condonation petition, this review petition stands dismissed.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR . D : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R: MEMBER
Sh/-
