Kerala

StateCommission

A/356/2018

INDUS MOTORS COMPANY PVT LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

IQBAL - Opp.Party(s)

SURESH KUMAR C R

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NOs.356/18. 357/18 & 358/18

JUDGMENT DATED:06.09.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

APPEAL NO.356/18

 

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

One way Junction,

Kothamangalam Road,

Muvattupuzha.                                                                    : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Suresh Kumar c.R)

 

            Vs.

 

Iqbal, S/o Mohammed Shafi,

Nayikanmavudiyil,

Pezhakapilly P.O,                                                               : RESPONDENT

Muvattupuzha.

 

APPEAL NO.357/18

 

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

One way Junction,

Kothamangalam Road,

Muvattupuzha.                                                                    : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Suresh Kumar c.R)

 

            Vs.

Kabeer @ Humayoon Kabeer,

S/o Mohammed Shafi, Puthupadi P.O,

Vellorkunnam Village,

Muvattupuzha.                                                                    : RESPONDENT

APPEAL NO.358/18

 

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd.,

One way Junction,

Kothamangalam Road,

Muvattupuzha.                                                                    : APPELLANT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Suresh Kumar c.R)

 

            Vs.

 

Sunise, S/o Abdul Khareem,

Kurumattu Kudiyil House,

Neriyamangalam P.O,                                                       : RESPONDENT

Kothamangalam Taluk.

 

 

 

       COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

These three appeals have been filed against the Common Order passed in three complaint cases viz, CC.587/11, 588/11 and 590/11 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur for short the district forum . The appeals are  filed with  petitions, separately to  condone delay of 465 days . 

2.     Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that previously the appellants had filed three appeals viz Appeal No.296/14, 297/13 and 298/14, and  those appeals have been dismissed for the reason they were not in proper form.  So much so, the present appeals are filed reckoning the period of delay from the date of dismissal of such previous appeals,  is  the  submission of the counsel.

3.     Perusing the affidavit sworn in support of the application for condoning the delay   in  filing the appeals,  and also Memorandum of appeals as well,   we find a bare statement has been made  that the previous appeals preferred by   appellants had been dismissed by the Commission without stating why they were dismissed.  Be  that as it may, where  a previous appeal has been dismissed for the reason  not in proper form,  even  assuming that it would amount only rejection of the appeal preferred not   barring  the party to move a fresh appeal in proper from, period of delay has to be reckoned not from the date of dismissal of the previous appeal filed  not  in proper form,  but , with respect to the order challenged in the appeal.  When that be so the period of delay involved in the case is much more than what is calculated and shown by the appellants for condonation.  No explanation is given for condoning such delay by the appellants in these appeals.  Perusing the order passed by the lower Forum also we are not satisfied that the cases decided by the Forum involve any matter requiring fresh look and reconsideration by this Commission entertaining the appeals condoning the inordinate delay.  Applications for condonation of delay are therefore dismissed and the appeals are rejected.

Sums deposited by the appellants in the three appeals to entertain them shall be refunded, on their application.

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

 VL.