+KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 922/2024 in APPEAL No. 438/2024
ORDER DATED: 09.12.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 57/2019 of DCDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
- The Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair, Adv. N.G. Maheshand
Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sree Gokulam Highway Tower Apartment Owners Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary, John Joseph @ Abi Kunneparambil, Kunne Parambil House, Moolavattom, Nattakom P.O., Kottayam-686 013.
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 228 days in filing the appeal.
2. The petitioners would contend that the order dated 11.05.2022 was received by the petitioners on 10.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review petition on 06.07.2022 which was dismissed by the District Commission on 31.08.2022. The order dismissing the review petition was received by the petitioners on 03.10.2023. The petitioners would contend that the delay of 423 days from 06.07.2022 to 03.10.2023 occurred due to the prosecution in connection with the review petition. After excluding the above said period, there was a delay of 228 days in filing the appeal. The petitioners had to get sanction from the law section for filing the appeal. The standing counsel at Thiruvananthapuram was also laid up due to high viral fever for more than two weeks. The office of the standing counsel was also shifted. In the said circumstances, there occurred a delay of 228 days in filing the appeal.
3. Heard.
4. 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.
5. 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”.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. In the light of the above legal position, we have to test whether the delay in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.
11. The petitioners would contend that after getting the order, they filed review petition on 06.07.2022 which was dismissed on 31.08.2022. Thereafter, they received the order of the review petition only on 03.10.2023. The petitioners excluded the period from 06.07.2022 to 03.10.2023 for calculating the delay in filing the appeal. However, the petitioners are entitled to get exclusion only for the period from 06.07.2022 to 31.08.2022, during which period the petitioners were prosecuting the review petition. The period from 31.08.2022 to 03.10.2023 cannot be excluded as contended by the petitioners. Apart from that, there is additional delay of 228 days in filing the appeal.
12. It appears that the delay was occasioned due to administrative reasons. The administrative reasons are not sufficient to condone the delay of 228 days in filing the appeal.
13. Having gone through the reasons stated by the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioners are not at all sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 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
jb
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 438/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 09.12.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 57/2019 of DCDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- The Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kottayam.
(By Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair, Adv. N.G. Maheshand
Adv. Sheeba Sivadasan)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Sree Gokulam Highway Tower Apartment Owners Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary, John Joseph @ Abi Kunneparambil, Kunne Parambil House, Moolavattom, Nattakom P.O., Kottayam-686 013.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 922/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as time barred.
The statutory deposit made by the appellants shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb
