Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/19/2023

The Manager, Zulaikha Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. Madhavan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s V.Shankar

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

              Thiru. R VENKATESAPERUMAL       … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.19 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 16.02.2023 passed in CMP No.179 of 2022

 in C.C. SR. No.570/2022 on the file of  the

DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu)

                                                    

                                   Orders pronounced on:  31.05.2023.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Orders pronounced on:  31.05.2023.                                              Smt. Parvatham,

1. The Manager,

M/s. Zulaikha Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

Nos.398 & 399-A, Velachery - Tambaram Main Road,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.     

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. Zulaikha Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

CMRD Road, Balamurugan Nagar,

Thenmozhi Nagar,

Keelakattalai,

Chennai – 600 117.

 

3. The Manager,

M/s. Zulaikha Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

No.10/8, South Phase, 3^rd Main Road,

Ambattur Industrial Estate,

Chennai – 600 058.     

  .. Revision Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 4/Opposite Parties 2 to 4.

 

vs.

 

1. V. Madhavan,

S/o. Mr. Venkataraman,

No.29, Varasiddhi Vinayakar Koil Street,

Maraimalai Nagar & Post,

Singaperumal Koil Via,

Chengalpet District.

                            .. 1^st Respondent / Petitioner / Complainant.

 

2. The Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Gateway Building,

Apollo Bunder,    

Mumbai – 400 001.

 

3. The Manager,

U & I Cars & Trucks Garage – My TVS Workshop,

   Sankara Complex, KM. 46/8, GST Road,

   Melrosapuram Road Junction,

   Chegalpattu.

 .. Respondents 2 & 3 / Respondents 1 & 5 /Opposite parties 1 & 5.

 

For Revision Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 4/

Opposite Parties 2 to 4                               :  M/s. V. Shankar

 

For 1^st Respondent / Petitioner /

Complainant                                             :   M/s. V. Tamilamudhu

 

          This Revision Petition came up for final hearing on 10.03.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the Counsel for Revision Petitioner and 1^st Respondent and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.  

 

           The Revision Petitioners herein are OPs-2 to 4 in CC.SR. No.570 of 2022, on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu, and aggrieved by the Order, dated 16.02.2023, passed by the said Commission, allowing CMP No.179 of 2022, which was filed by the complainant/R1 herein, seeking to condone the delay of 878 days in filing the consumer complaint, they have come up with the present Revision.

           2. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

           3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, after specifically pointing out that the Complaint filed by the 1^st respondent herein before the District Commission was actually beyond the statutory period of 2 years, states that, while so, when the Miscellaneous Petition was filed by him seeking to condone a colossal delay of 878 days, the same was vehemently opposed by the OPs/Revision Petitioners herein, who filed a detailed counter affidavit by inter alia stating that the delay was not sufficiently/satisfactorily explained and that the affidavit filed in support of the petition is bereft of merits to show any leniency.  According to him, while the matter came to be listed on 16.02.2023, by making a representation that the OPs/Revision Petitioners have already filed an exhaustive counter on 03.02.2023, a short respite was requested for appearance of the counsel on record and to argue the matter, but such genuine request was out-rightly declined by the Commission below which rushed to allow the petition by passing the impugned order.  By ultimately stating that the hurried manner in which the impugned order came to be passed only shows the exercise of discretion in a perverse manner upon wrong principles that ultimately caused serious injustice to the other side, learned counsel seeks to set aside the same.

           4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the R1/Complainant would support the impugned order by stating that, while considering the petition to condone the delay, the Commission below had well taken note of the objections raised in the counter-affidavit, categorically found that the petitioner disclosed sufficient cause for condoning the delay and ultimately, allowed the petition in the interests of justice; as such, there is no scope for any interference with the impugned order.

           5. On a perusal of the impugned order, we find, the said order is obviously reticent as it lacks discussion except bluntly stating that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay and that the delay was beyond his control.   In cases particularly where the delay is huge and hefty,  the other side shall be given sufficient opportunity of hearing and, apart from that, the order should reflect due application of mind on the part of the Commission concerned for reaching a conclusion as just and proper.   In the present case, from the memo filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent, we find that major portion of the delay period falls within the corona spell and that, if the time-space covering the corona period is excluded, the actual delay gets reduced to 118 days.  In such circumstances, the District Commission could have recorded the relevant details in its order with reasons for its inclination to allow the petition, seeking condonation of delay.  At any rate, even though the way in which the impugned order was passed is not definitely in line with the practice & procedure, the conclusion reached being just and correct, we are not convinced to set aside the same and remit the matter back as any such course would only further delay the proceedings.  Therefore, with an observation that the District Commission shall not give room for any such instances of solecism in future, we dismiss the revision.

           6. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed.  No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition in CMP No.130 of 2023 stands closed.

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                            R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/MAY/2023.