KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM I.A.324/2010 IN F.A.137/2010 ORDER DATED:23..04..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Thyssen Krupp ECE Elevator Pvt. Ltd., (Now named ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd), Having its registered office at 6th floor, Vipps Center Masjid ‘Mith, L.S.C.G.K.II, New Delhi-110 048, Presently functioning at No:429, Functional Indiustrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi, PIN-110 092, Rep. by its Managing Director. : PETITIONERS Branch Manager, Thyssen Krupp ECE Elevator Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office at 36/732, Opposite HMC Club, Katrikadavu Road, Kaloor, Cochin. (By Adv: Sri.Thirumala.K.Bijukumar) Vs. Shekinah Apartments Owners Association, Miss East Road, Baker Hill colony, Kottayam-1, Rep. by its President V.K.Itty, R/at Apartment No:A-3, Shekinah Apartments, Of -do- -do- : RESPONDENTS Secretary, Shekinah Apartments Owners Association, Of -do- -do- Roy Jacob, R/at Apartment No:C-6, Shekinah Apartments, Of -do- -do- ORDER JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The application is for condonation of delay of 220 days. 2. The petitioner who is the opposite party in CC:132/07 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam has filed the application. In the affidavit filed by the operations, Manager of the petitioner it is mentioned that the order was received on 13/7/2009 and he contacted the erstwhile counsel and made arrangements to file the appeal. It was under the impression that the counsel had filed the appeal. Only when the notice on execution petition was received, it was known that the appeal has not been filed. Hence the delay of 220 days is sought to be condoned. 3. The respondent/complainant has filed objection pointing out that the reasons mentioned is vague and that even the name of the counsel is not mentioned. It is also point out that the appellants have not mentioned anything about the DD that has to be produced. 4. At the time of hearing it was submitted that the matter relates to the repair of the lifts of a 7 storied building. It is mentioned in the order that even after one year and 2 ½ months of entrusting the matter with the opposite parties the repair was not effected and that another firm was entrusted with the repair of the lift and they have executed the same. 5. So far as the reasons for condoning the delay of 220 days, it is only mentioned that the counsel failed to prefer the appeal. It is not explained as to why the appellant did not pursue the matter in time. We find that the reasons mentioned are hardly sufficient to condone the delay of 220 days. In the result the application to condone the delay is dismissed. Hence appeal is also dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER VL. | 
