State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionM/S. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. vs M/S Ap Motronix Private Limited, on 11 September, 2013BEFORE
THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. 

 

   

 

 FAIA 1980 of
2013 in FASR 4798/2013  

 

 against CC 125/2012,
Dist. Forum, Ranga Reddy 

 

  

 

Between: 

 

  

 

M/s. Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd. 

 

Rep. by its Director 

 

Unit No. XXV, P.B. Road 

 

Gabbur, Hubli 

 

Karnataka-580 028.    *** Petitioner/ 

 

Appellant/ 

 

 O.P. No. 2  

 

And 

 

  

 

1.     M/s AP Motronix Private
Limited, 

 

# 3-18-3, Pragathi Nagar,  

 

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,  

 

Rep. by its Managing
Director  

 

D.Prashanth Reddy. 

 

  

 

2.     M/s Dumpala Engineering
Company, 

 

# 3-18-3, Pragathi Nagar,  

 

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,  

 

Rep. by its Proprietrix  

 

Smt D.Swaroopa Reddy.  ***  Respondents/ 

 

Complainants 

 

  

 

3.     M/s Kadevi Industries
Limited, 

 

A1-A2, Electronic Complex,  

 

Kushaiguda, 

 

Hyderabad  500 062. 

 

Rep. by General Manager, 

 

Business Development  

 

(Generators Division)  *** Respondent/ 

 

  O.P. No. 1 

 

  

 

Counsel for the
Petitioner : M/s.
Devashish Dash 

 

Counsel for the
Respondent:    Admission
Stage 

 

  

 

CORAM: 

 

 SMT. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

& 

 

 SRI S.
BHUJANGA RAO, MEMBER  

 

 

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN 

 

  

 

ORAL
ORDER:(Per Smt. M. Shreesha, Member) 

 

  

 

***1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No.
125/2012 on the file of the Dist. Forum,
Ranga Reddy, the opposite party No. 2 preferred this appeal and along with it the above application to condone delay of 225 days
in filing the appeal on the ground that they did not receive order copy of the Dist. Forum and they came
to learn about the ex-parte order through R3/Op1 on 23.7.2013 and on being advised they immediately preferred this appeal after
obtaining certified copies through their Regional Office at Bangalore. In the process a delay of 225 days had
occasioned. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton but for
the aforementioned reasons, and therefore prayed that the delay may be
condoned.2) In the light of the fact that
delay was whopping 225 days without any material whatsoever to substantiate the
delay, we do not wish to order any notice to the respondent as no improvement could be made by the
petitioner/appellant in regard to the plea urged.
The provisions of Civil Procedure
Code or provisions ofLimitation Actdo
not apply to the proceedings under theConsumer Protection Actto order notice before resolving the issue. The matters have to be resolved by applying
principles of natural justice, equity, and good conscience etc.3) As there is inordinate delay of
225 days, this delay cannot be condoned
in the light of the following judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court.In  R.B. Ramlingam Vs.  R.B.
Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has been
observed: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.In  Ram Lal and Ors. Vs.  Rewa
Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 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 byS.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.Honble
Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation of delay observed in  Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd.
Vs.  Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC
459 as under;We have considered the
respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public
policy. The legislature does not
prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties
but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek
remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive
for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of
limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress
of the legal injury. At the same time,
the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient
cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.Honble
Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563   Post
Master General & Ors. Vs.  Living
Media India Ltd. and Anr.has not condoned delay in filing appeal even
by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an
exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government
departments.. Honble
Apex Court in 2012 (2)CPC3 (SC)   Anshul
Aggarwal Vs.  New Okhla
Industrial Development Authority 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 theConsumer 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.The Honble Apex Court inCicily Kallarackal Vs. Vehicle
Factoryreported in IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC) 1
reiterated that:condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would
amount to substituting the period of
limitation by this Court in place of
period prescribed by Legislator for
filing SLP. Therefore we do not see any
cogent reason to condone delay.In the same judgement the Honble Supreme Court also observed:7. While
declining to interfere in the present Special Leave Petition preferred against
the order passed by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction underArticle 226of the Constitution of India, we hereby make it
clear that the order of the Commission are incapable of being questioned under
the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms ofSection 27A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have no hesitation in
issuing a direction of caution that it will not be proper exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Courts to entertain writ petitions against such orders
of the Commission.A copy of this order may be sent to the Registrar General of all the High
Courts, for bringing the same to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justices and
Hon'ble Judges of the respective High Courts.Thus, it becomes clear that there is no
reasonable explanation at all for condonation of inordinate delay of 225 days. Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay alone.4) Even on merits, we do not find
any reason to interfere with the order of the Dist. Forum as the appellant
has failed to contest the matter despite service of notice and was set-exparte. When notice was served a duty is cast on them
to file their written version and contest the
matter. When they did not choose to
participate in the proceedings they have to bear the resultant consequences.5) In the light of facts and
circumstances of the case and in the light of judgements of the Apex Court, we
are of the considered opinion that this petition is liable to be dismissed.6) In the result this petition is
dismissed. Consequently the appeal is
rejected. No costs. Time for compliance four weeks.1)  _______________________________ 

 

PRESIDING
MEMBER2)          
________________________________ 

 

MEMBER   

 

  

 

*pnr  11/09/2013 

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

 UP LOAD  O.K.