KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITION Nos. 38/2018, 39/2018 & 40/2018
ORDER DATED: 21.08.2018
(Against the order in C.C. 269/2016, 115/2017 & 333/16 of CDRF, Kozhikode)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER
REVISION PETITION No. 38/2018
REVISION PETITIONER:
Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, K.P. Kesava Menon Road, Kozhikode-673001.
(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS :
- Swetha Sudin, Meledath, Arun House, Keezhana Meethal, Chevayur, Calicut.
- D. Sali, 2/87, ‘Nisa’, Karaparamba P.O, Calicut.
- Nisha Sali, 2/87, ‘Nisha’, Karapparamba P.O, Calicut.
REVISION PETITION No. 39/2018
REVISION PETITIONER:
Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, K.P. Kesava Menon Road, Kozhikode-673001.
(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS :
- C.K.V. Musthafa, ‘Muzdalifa’, Meleripadam, Kallai P.O, Calicut.
- Ayisha, W/o C.K.V. Musthafa, ‘Muzdalifa’, Meleripadam, Kallai P.O, Calicut.
REVISION PETITION No. 40/2018
REVISION PETITIONER:
Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, K.P. Kesava Menon Road, Kozhikode-673001.
(By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS :
- Saravanan, B-5, B Block, Vrindavan Apartments, Bhajanakovil Road, Chalappuram, Calicut.
- Sowmiya, W/o Saravanan, B-5, B Block, Vrindavan Apartments, Bhajanakovil Road, Chalappuram, Calicut.
COMMON ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
The above three revisions arise from orders passed separately in three complaint cases by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kozhikkode condoning the delay in filing such complaints. Identical facts are involved in the three complaints filed separately by three customers of the revision petitioner bank. Their lockers in the bank had been opened and articles kept therein were found missing was reported to them by the bank was their case. There was a writ petition before the High Court for ordering a CBI enquiry. Complainants alleging deficiency in service against the revision petitioner bank filed complaints after a considerable period i.e. after nearly two years. Cause for delay shown by them for entertaining their complaint was found acceptable to the Forum and thereupon it has passed orders in each complaint condoning delay. Such orders are challenged by the bank separately in these revisions.
2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner bank submits that no convincing explanation or sufficient cause was shown by the complainants for the inordinate delay in filing their complaints, and the order passed by the Forum condoning the delay suffered from serious infirmity. After looking into the order passed by the Forum with respect to the submission made by the counsel we are of the view that exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commission at this stage to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order condoning the delay involved is not called for. We dismiss the revision petitions reserving the right of the revision petitioner bank to agitate their challenge of limitation in the appeal against final orders of the Forum if such orders are adverse to the bank. Subject to observations made as above, the revision petitions are dismissed.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R : MEMBER
