Latha Venugopal vs THANKAMMA

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, "the State Commission) dated 29.6.2011 whereby the State Commission modified the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal with following directions: - "In the result the appeal is allowed in part and directed the opposite parties 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 to pay to the complainants 1 to 7, the amounts paid by them to the opposite parties as per the records and they directed to produce the statement of account before the Forum below within 15 days and the appellant/opposite parties shall produce their statement of account also before the Forum below and the admitted amount alone is liable to be paid by the appellants opposite parties to the complainants with 12% interest from the date of filing of the complaint before the Forum below. Suppose the opposite parties did not produce the statement of accounts before the Forum below within 15 days, the appellant/opposite parties are liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant and as ordered by the Forum below in the order. In other words in such a circumstances the order of the Forum below is binding to both the parties. This appeal is disposed accordingly."

REVISION , however, has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation of 90 days with a delay of 175 days as per the petitioners and 177 days as per the computation done by the registry. The petitioners, therefore, has moved an application for condonation of delay.

BEFORE adverting to the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in filing of the revision petition, it is pertinent to note that the District Forum, Ernakulam while holding the petitioners guilty of deficiency in service allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to pay sum referred to in para -1 of the order to the complainants No.1 to 7 with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the complaint till payment, besides Rs.350/ - as cost of proceedings to each of the complainants. On perusal of the para -1 of the order we find that the petitioners have been directed to pay to the complainant Sri Thankamma Rs.22,000/ -, Sri T.D. Babu Rs.17,000/ -, Sri Johnson Rs.20,000/ -, Sri E.A. Krishnan Rs.23,500/ -, Sri Viji Rs.19,000/ -, Sri Anni Rs.5,300/ - and Sri Aliyar Rs.4,240/ -. For the above petty amounts directed to be p aid to the respondents/complainants, revision petition has been preferred. Coming to the explanation for delay, learned Shri Shyam Padman, Advocate for the petitioners submit that the delay in filing of the revision petition is unintentional. Actually the petitioner P.K. Krishnankutti was pursuing this matter on behalf of all the petitioners and he was given the task of giving necessary instructions to the counsel for filing the revision petition. It is contended that Shri Krishnankutti became ill and had to undergo treatment. He was almost disabled and partly bed ridden and therefore he could not instruct the counsel to file the revision petition in time. It is further contended that petitioners at the relevant time was suffering from Dementia and Isehaemic heart disease. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to medical certificate purported to have been issued by Dr. H. Ahmed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that otherwise also the petitioners have a very strong case in revision and if the delay is not condoned it will result in injustice to the petitioners.

WE do not find merit in the aforesaid explanation. From the record it is obvious that there are six petitioners. Medical certificate in respect of P.K. Krishnakutty has been filed. If Mr. P.K. Krishnakutty was actually suffering from Dementia and Isehaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and COPD since 2005, there is no reason why the other petitioners could not have taken onus upon themselves to file the revision petition. There is no explanation in this regard. The medical certificate reads as under: - "This is to certify that Mr. Krishnankutty, 77 yrs. (Parambil House, Aluva) is suffering from Dementia, Diabetes Mellitus, COPD and Isehaemic Heart Disease. He is on regular treatment from our hospital since 2005. His memory is very poor and he does require total care. His family members do provide him full support and care."

ON reading of the medical certificate we find that it is vague. It does not say in so many words that Mr. Krishnakutty because of his ailment was not in a position to look after his day to day affairs. Medical certificate is not supported by the treatment record. Therefore, we are not inclined to rely upon it.

LAW relating to condonation of delay is well settled. The law relating to condonation of delay is well settled. In Ram Lal and Ors. Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., 1962 AIR(SC) 361, it has been observed: "It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant".

IN R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 2 Scale 108 Apex Court has observed as follows: "We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.

HON ''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 4 CPJ 63(SC) observed as under: "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 foras."

IN the light of the above judgments, we find no reason to condone the delay particularly when petty amounts of poor complainants are involved. The petitioners cannot be permitted to use their financial clouts to delay the fruits of the award passed by the Foras below to the respondents/complainants. Application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. As a consequence, revision petition is dismissed as barred by limitation.