KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
I.A. No. 969/2024 in APPEAL No. 459/2024
ORDER DATED: 15.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 17/2023 of DCDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
The Manager, M/s M.K. Motors,(Automotive Division of Malankara Plantations Ltd.), Kodimatha, Kottayam-686 013 represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Deon Joseph, S/o Joseph Augustine, Orchid Mansion (H), Thambalakkadu Kara, Anakkal P.O., Villany, Kanjirappally, Kottayam-686 508.
(By Advs. Siby Chenappady, Anu George & Noble Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- T.N. Anandavally, W/o N.G. Narayanan Nair, Nellikkunnathu House, Kadappoor-Vattakulam P.O., Kottayam-686 587.
(By Advs. Bibin K.S., Don Paul &Arun Kumar)
- Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 081.
(By Advs. V. Krishna Menon, S. Reghukumar & Surya J.)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
This is an application seeking for condoning the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal.
2. It is contended that the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the District Commission was received by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. The petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order on 18.04.2024 and the certified copy was received on 03.05.2024. The legal officer of the petitioner resigned from the post and hence a new legal officer had to be appointed. The new legal officer was appointed on 20.06.2024 and consequently there was a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal.
3. Objection has been filed by the 1st respondent strongly opposing the application. It is stated that the reasons stated by the petitioner are completely false and fabricated. The petitioner completely failed to give satisfactory reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The reasons stated by the petitioner are baseless and are not sufficient to condone the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal.
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 Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma and another, 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 appeal is liable to be condoned or not in this case.
12. The petitioner would contend that the free copy of order dated 15.02.2024 was received by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. However, the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order on 18.04.2024, which was received by the petitioner on 03.05.2024. It is stated that the law officer of the petitioner had resigned from the post and hence a new officer had to be appointed. The new law officer was appointed only on 20.06.2024 and hence there was delay in filing the appeal.
13. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is that the delay was caused due to the resignation of the law officer. However, it is not stated as to when the law officer resigned. It is very pertinent to note that the free copy of the order from the District Commission was received by the petitioner on 04.03.2024. The petitioner does not have a contention that the free copy of the order received on 04.03.2024 was lost or misplaced. It is also not stated as to why the certified copy was applied for. Having gone through the contentions of the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the reasons stated by the petitioner are only flimsy administrative reasons, which are not sufficient to condone the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. That apart, there was gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of the petitioner in this regard. For the said reasons, 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
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 459/2024
JUDGMENT DATED: 15.10.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 17/2023 of DCDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
The Manager, M/s M.K. Motors, (Automotive Division of Malankara Plantations Ltd.), Kodimatha, Kottayam-686 013 represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Deon Joseph, S/o Joseph Augustine, Orchid Mansion (H), Thambalakkadu Kara, Anakkal P.O., Villany, Kanjirappally, Kottayam-686 508.
(By Advs. Siby Chenappady, Anu George & Noble Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- T.N. Anandavally, W/o N.G. Narayanan Nair, Nellikkunnathu House, Kadappoor-Vattakulam P.O., Kottayam-686 587.
(By Advs. Bibin K.S., Don Paul &Arun Kumar)
- Tata Motors Ltd., Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 081.
(By Advs. V. Krishna Menon, S. Reghukumar & Surya J.)
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
In view of the dismissal of I.A. No. 969/2024, this appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be refunded to the 1st 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
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
