KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 1119/2024 in REVISION PETITION No. 63/2024
ORDER DATED: 06.11.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. 57/2023 in C.C. 231/2018 of DCDRC, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Sajesh, Staff, Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
- Dhanaraj, Staff, Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
(By Adv. Bijili Joseph and Adv. Narayan R.)
-
RESPONDENTS:
- Sijin K., S/o Balakrishnan, Sreeragam HO, Villapally, Villapalli P.O., Vadakara, Kozhikode-673 542.
(By Adv. Sujay Sankar)
- MahadmaDesadava Educational and Charitable Trust, represented by Chairman, T. Sreenivasan, Nadakkuthazhe P.O., Vadakara-673 104.
- Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 330 days in filing the revision petition.
2. It is contended by the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware of the legal position that the complainant could be cross-examined even if the version was not filed and hence, there was a delay of 330 days in filing the revision petition.
3. Objection has been filed by the 1st respondent.
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 revision petition is liable to be condoned or not in this case.
12. The sum and substance of the contention of the revision petitioners is that when there was a change in the proposition of law in favour of the revision petitioners in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel v. M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited reported in 2024 KHC 6386: 2024 INSC 542: AIR 2024 SC 3854, that the complainant could be cross-examined even if the version was not filed, the revision petitioners have filed the present revision petition and hence there was a delay of 330 days in filing the revision petition. 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 330 days in filing the revision petition. 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.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has requested for a direction to the District Commission to permit the petitioners to cross-examine the 1st respondent/complainant. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel (supra), no separate permission is necessary from this Commission for the petitioners to cross-examine the 1st respondent/complainant. Therefore, the request in this regard need not be considered by this Commission.
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
REVISION PETITION No. 63/2024
ORDER DATED: 06.11.2024
(Against the Order in I.A. 57/2023 in C.C. 231/2018 of DCDRC, Kozhikode)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
REVISION PETITIONERS:
- Sajesh, Staff, Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
- Dhanaraj, Staff, Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
(By Adv. Bijili Joseph and Adv. Narayan R.)
-
RESPONDENTS:
- Sijin K., S/o Balakrishnan, Sreeragam HO, Villapally, Villapalli P.O., Vadakara, Kozhikode-673 542.
(By Adv. Sujay Sankar)
- MahadmaDesadava Educational and Charitable Trust, represented by Chairman, T. Sreenivasan, Nadakkuthazhe P.O., Vadakara-673 104.
- Samudra Ayurveda Research Centre, Mukkal, Choombala, Vadakara-673 301.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 1119/2024, this revision petition stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
