Skip to content


Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another Vs. Baburaj P.B, Paramel Houseand Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

Decided On

Case Number

First Appeal No. A/12/148 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/11/2010 in Case No. CC/08/292 of District Trissur) & I.A.237/12

Judge

Appellant

Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Another

Respondent

Baburaj P.B, Paramel Houseand Another

Excerpt:


.....the affidavit filed by the senior manager, legal of the 2nd opposite party/appellant it is mentioned that the delay was occasioned on account of the fact that the concerned lawyer did not follow up the matter properly and that the company came to know of the order only when the notice in the execution petition was received. it is also mentioned that the 2nd respondent/dealer had filed an appeal. the above appeal was dismissed on 10.10.2011. in the meanwhile application for certified copy of the order in cc was filed and the copy was received on 5.2.2007. the 1st respondent/complainant has filed objection pointing out that the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is incomplete as the name of the lawyer is not mentioned. it is also pointed out that it is not mentioned as to who received the copy of the order despatched after disposal of the matter. it is not mentioned that as to which lawyer received the order on behalf of the appellant. the present appellants are also the respondent in another appeal filed by another opposite party in cc.292/08. hence the appellant would have been aware of the proceedings herein. the counsel for the respondent has produced judgment in.....

Judgment:


JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

The petition is filed for condonation of delay of 420 days in filing the appeal over the order in CC.292/08 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. In the affidavit filed by the Senior Manager, Legal of the 2nd opposite party/appellant it is mentioned that the delay was occasioned on account of the fact that the concerned lawyer did not follow up the matter properly and that the company came to know of the order only when the notice in the execution petition was received. It is also mentioned that the 2nd respondent/dealer had filed an appeal. The above appeal was dismissed on 10.10.2011. In the meanwhile application for certified copy of the order in CC was filed and the copy was received on 5.2.2007.

The 1st respondent/complainant has filed objection pointing out that the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is incomplete as the name of the lawyer is not mentioned. It is also pointed out that it is not mentioned as to who received the copy of the order despatched after disposal of the matter. It is not mentioned that as to which lawyer received the order on behalf of the appellant. The present appellants are also the respondent in another appeal filed by another opposite party in CC.292/08. Hence the appellant would have been aware of the proceedings herein.

The counsel for the respondent has produced judgment in A.47/11 filed by the dealer over the order in the CC which would show that the same has been dismissed on 10.10.2011. The above appeal has been dismissed by a considered order.

In the circumstances and also in view of the fact that the inordinate delay of 420 days is not properly explained. We find that the delay condonation petition is liable to be dismissed.

Hence the delay condonation petition is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //