Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/71

Jagadish Bhupatrai Trivedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vimal Sons - Opp.Party(s)

Madhusudhanan.C

13 Apr 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/71
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/06/1009 in Case No. OP 160/02 of District Kozhikode)
1. Jagadish Bhupatrai Trivedi ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. Vimal Sons ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT
PRESENT :

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

IA 157/2010 in Appeal 71/2010

ORDER DATED: 13.4.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

1. Sri.Jagadish Bhupatrai Trivedi,                           : PETITIONERS

    Residing at Sree Balakrishna Mandir

    Compound, Silk Street, Calicut.

2. M/s Roshan Freight Carrier,

    Pragaraj Builidng, 80/82,

    Issaji stteet, Mumbai – 400 003.

 

 

(By Adv. Madhusudhanan.C)

 

                  Vs.

1. Vimal sons,                                                       : RESPONDENTS

    Mathruchaya, 8/225,

    Silk street, Calicut 673 032.

 

2. Balkishan Das and Son,

    Katra Naj, Moradabad 244 001.

 

3. M/s United India Insurance

    Company Ltd., Remeez Arcade,

    Cherooty road, Calicut,

    Pin 673 032.

ORDER

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

Delay sought to be condoned is of 254 days.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is mentioned that he has retired from service on 1.1.02  and was residing temporarily with  his mother at Mumbai.  It is also submitted that the 1st respondent  visited 2nd appellants office and offered to withdraw the EP.  He was under the impression that the EP will be with drawn.  EP has not been withdrawn and hence the appeal has been filed.

          3. The respondent/complainant has filed objection alleging that the appeal is filed only  to protract the EP proceedings.  It is also mentioned that the 2nd appellant/the firm had assured to settle the claim and offered to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- within one month.  The copy of the letter is also produced along with.  It is contended that there is  no bonafides  in the application filed to condone the delay. 

4. We find that the reason mentioned  for condoning the delay of 254 days is hardly sufficient.  Further more it is seen that the appellant/petitioner has been implicated only in a  representative  capacity as the branch Manager of the firm.  The firm is also one of the appellants.  There is no reason as to why the  firm did  not taken up the matter in time.  We find that the OP is of the year 2002 and the order has been pronounced June 2009.  In the circumstances we find that the application to condone  the delay of 254 days is without merits.  Hence the application is dismissed and the appeal is also dismissed.

 

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

ps

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 13 April 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT