At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. R. RANJIT
By, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. A. BEENA KUMARI
For the Petitioners: C.K. Anwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: ----
K. Surendra Mohan, President
The petitioners seek condonation of a delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. The reason stated for condoning the delay is that the appellants are Architects/interior contractors by profession. Since they have clients across the country, they had to be regularly out of station, travelling in connection with work related engagements. Therefore, they were not able to file the appeal within time. The 2nd appellant is his wife and she was also accompanying him.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent disputing the reasons stated for condoning the delay.
4. We are not satisfied that the delay in this case has been satisfactorily explained. No grounds have been made out for condonation of the inordinate delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. We have also perused the contentions of the appellants in the complaint filed. We find that the complaint itself was filed agitating a time barred issue. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint as time barred. Therefore we are not satisfied that the appellants have any case on the merits also. The counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the decision in Mistri Jayantilal Vithaldas Vs. The Idar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2013(2) CPR 443 (NC) to put forward a contention that, in complaints regarding financial services, the limitation has to be counted from the date of demand. The facts in the said case reveal that, there the rate of interest of a fixed deposit had been reduced by the bank during the period for which it had been made. The complainant waited till the fixed deposit matured to file his complaint. The National Commission found that, the limitation had to be counted from the date of demand and that the conduct of the complainant in having waited till the Fixed Deposit matured cannot be found fault with. No such situation exists in the present case. Here, the allegation is that the respondents had not provided certain services offered by them under an insurance policy and that, without providing any service, a demand had been made by them in 2007 for charges which they recovered. The allegation in the complaint is that, the said demand was made without providing services. Though the incident occurred in 2007, the demand for return of the payment was made
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
only in 2015. The said demand cannot revive the issue that had already become time barred. Therefore the decision on which reliance has been placed has no application to the facts of this case. For the foregoing reasons this petition is dismissed.