| Final Order / Judgement | KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM I.A. No. 942/2019 in APPEAL No. 327/2019 ORDER DATED: 16.10.2023 (Against the Order in C.C. 230/2017 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta) PRESENT: SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: - Rajeev K.N., S/o Narayanan, Executive Director, Sigs Tech Marketing (Sigs Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., Kulangara House, Thirunakkara P.O., Kottayam-686 601) now residing at Sauparnika, Near to Govt. Guest House, Vikom Road, Trippunithura, Ernakulam.
- Sandhya K.V., W/o Rajeev K.N., Executive Director, Sigs Tech Marketing (Sigs Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., residing at Sauparnika, Near to Govt. Guest House, Vikom Road, Trippunithura, Ernakulam.
(By Adv. Sreekala S.) Vs. RESPONDENTS: - Teenu Anne Tony, W/o Jaison Jasi, Santhome Cottage, Vayalathala P.O., Cherukol Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta represented by Antony Abraham, Padinjaremannil House, Puthussery South P.O., Kallooppara Village, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Reny Mammen) - Vrinda Rajesh, Director, Sigs Tech Marketing, Pulickal Trade Centre, S.H. Mount P.O., Nagampadam, Kottayam-686 001, residing at Kulangara House, Thirunakkara P.O., Kottayam-686 001.
- George Vazhappally Thomas, Vazhappally House, Vasantha Nagar, Elthuruth P.O., Thrissur-680 611.
ORDER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R.: MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order in C.C. No. 230/2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta (District Commission for short). The District Commission by its order dated 30.10.2018 allowed the complaint. The appeal is filed with a delay of 370 days. 2. The petitioners seek condonation of a delay of 370 days in filing the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not aware of the order against them and therefore could not file the appeal in time. They came to know of the order only when they received notice in the execution proceedings. According to them 2nd appellant did not receive the notice and the notice received by the first appellant was handed over to the 2nd respondent/first opposite party as the complaint pertains to their client. They thought that the case will be handled by them and that appellants would have been removed from the party array and hence no further action was taken. The learned counsel for the Petitioners /Appellants submitted that the reasons stated for the delay are genuine and was not deliberate or intentional and hence prayed for condoning the delay. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant filed objections and vehemently opposed the delay condonation petition. According to the learned counsel, the contentions raised for condonation of delay are false and baseless. The appellants were aware of the case and they were intentionally evading the court. She submitted that the appellants were well aware of the complaint and about the order of the District Commission and was ignoring and avoiding it intentionally. She further submitted that the reasons stated are not genuine and there is no sufficient or reasonable cause for the delay. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the delay condonation petition and appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and carefully gone through the records. 5. The delay sought to be condoned is 370 days. It is admitted that, the order of the District Commission is dated 30.10.2018 and the appeal should have been filed within the prescribed time limit. We are not convinced about the reasons given by the appellants for the delay in filing the appeal. Needless to say that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Where there is a delay, the burden is upon the person who appears before the Commission seeking condonation of delay to explain it with sufficient reasons. The appellants appear to have not acted diligently and had remained inactive for quite some time after getting the order of the District Forum. They have not been able to give adequate and sufficient reasons to show that they were prevented from approaching this Commission within the limitation period, due to circumstances beyond their control. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 370 days. The petition for condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER jb KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 327/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 16.10.2023 (Against the Order in C.C. 230/2017 of CDRC, Pathanamthitta) PRESENT: SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER APPELLANTS: - Rajeev K.N., S/o Narayanan, Executive Director, Sigs Tech Marketing (Sigs Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., Kulangara House, Thirunakkara P.O., Kottayam-686 601) now residing at Sauparnika, Near to Govt. Guest House, Vikom Road, Trippunithura, Ernakulam.
- Sandhya K.V., W/o Rajeev K.N., Executive Director, Sigs Tech Marketing (Sigs Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd., residing at Sauparnika, Near to Govt. Guest House, Vikom Road, Trippunithura, Ernakulam.
(By Adv. Sreekala S.) Vs. RESPONDENTS: - Teenu Anne Tony, W/o Jaison Jasi, Santhome Cottage, Vayalathala P.O., Cherukol Village, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta represented by Antony Abraham, Padinjaremannil House, Puthussery South P.O., Kallooppara Village, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Reny Mammen) - Vrinda Rajesh, Director, Sigs Tech Marketing, Pulickal Trade Centre, S.H. Mount P.O., Nagampadam, Kottayam-686 001, residing at Kulangara House, Thirunakkara P.O., Kottayam-686 001.
- George Vazhappally Thomas, Vazhappally House, Vasantha Nagar, Elthuruth P.O., Thrissur-680 611.
JUDGMENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN. K.R.: MEMBER Petition for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 942/2019) is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed. Statutory deposit remitted by the appellants at the time of filing this appeal shall be refunded to them, on proper application. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER jb | |
