V.P. Augustine and Another Vs. S. Ganesh

V.P. Augustine and Another vs S. Ganesh

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram Decided Dec 08, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1110819

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1110819
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Judge: Justice Shri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President
Decided On: Dec 08, 2009
Case Number: IA No. 805 of 2009 IN FA 377 of 2009
Subject: Consumer

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer

Key legal issue: Consumer

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.P. Augustine and Another

Respondent

S. Ganesh

Excerpt

justice shri. k.r. udayabhanu: president: the petitioner/first complainant in cc no. 08/2007 in the file of cdrf, wayanad has sought for condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal. in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is mentioned that he was aged 65 years and laid up with spondylitis. in the affidavit the period of delay is mentioned as 317 days. the respondent has filed objection pointing out the difference in the days mentioned in the affidavit and petition. it is also contended that spondylitis is not a disease that would disable a person to pursue the matter. we find that the appellant has produced the certificate of an ayurvedic physician mentioning that the complainant was under his treatment from 12-06-2008 and that he is not in a position to move about at present and that he has been advised complete rest. the certificate is dated 09-07-2009. we find that there are two complainants ie, the present petitioner and his wife. his wife was working as junior superintendent in the jfcm court. the matter related to dispute relating to the digging of a bore well. the opposite party had also initiated proceedings vide cc 629/06 against the complainant u/s 420 ipc. it is mentioned that the same was withdrawn at the request of the second complainant. the matter was also agitated before the taluk legal services authority. the same was dismissed. the complainants in the op had claimed refund of rs. 9,300/-. the forum has dismissed the complaint after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter. we find that the reason mentioned for condoning the delay of 327 days is hardly sufficient to condone such a long delay. it is also to be noted that the second complainant, the wife of the petitioner was a working lady having experience in judicial matters. in the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the petition filed to condone the delay. the above application is dismissed. hence the appeal is also dismissed.

Full Judgment

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT:

The petitioner/first complainant in CC No. 08/2007 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad has sought for condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal.

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is mentioned that he was aged 65 years and laid up with spondylitis. In the affidavit the period of delay is mentioned as 317 days.

The respondent has filed objection pointing out the difference in the days mentioned in the affidavit and petition. It is also contended that spondylitis is not a disease that would disable a person to pursue the matter.

We find that the appellant has produced the certificate of an Ayurvedic Physician mentioning that the complainant was under his treatment from 12-06-2008 and that he is not in a position to move about at present and that he has been advised complete rest. The certificate is dated 09-07-2009.

We find that there are two complainants ie, the present petitioner and his wife. His wife was working as Junior Superintendent in the JFCM Court. The matter related to dispute relating to the digging of a bore well. The opposite party had also initiated proceedings vide CC 629/06 against the complainant u/s 420 IPC. It is mentioned that the same was withdrawn at the request of the second complainant. The matter was also agitated before the Taluk Legal Services Authority. The same was dismissed. The complainants in the OP had claimed refund of Rs. 9,300/-. The Forum has dismissed the complaint after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter. We find that the reason mentioned for condoning the delay of 327 days is hardly sufficient to condone such a long delay. It is also to be noted that the second complainant, the wife of the petitioner was a working lady having experience in judicial matters. In the circumstances, we find that there is no merit in the petition filed to condone the delay. The above application is dismissed. Hence the appeal is also dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thi... Same Parties V.P. Augustine and Another vs S. Ganesh Same Subject Consumer Same Judge Justice Shri. K.R. Udayabhanu: President