N.Y. THAJUDHEEN Vs. K.J. MARBLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') the original complainant has filed the present petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 29.2.2000 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur, thereby partly allowing the complaint and directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,18,712, a compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 1,000 for committing deficiency in service in relation to laying down a marble floor in the house of the petitioner/complainant. The allegation of defect/deficiency being that marble used was of inferior quality, it was laid in uneven manner and without maintaining proper level, etc. In appeal the State Commission by giving cogent reasons has modified the said order and limited the relief only to the payment of Rs. 60,000 besides the cost. The revision petition has been filed after undue delay of 279 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed setting out certain vague reasons of delay. One of them is that when the order was passed by the State Commission, the petitioner was not in his hometown and was in Dubai and he did not have the information of the passing of the order and thereafter when he learnt about the order through the Counsel, the Counsel did not cooperate fully and, therefore, the revision petition could not be filed in time. It was only on his return to India that he took steps for filing the present proceedings. According to the learned Counsel these reasons show sufficient cause within the meaning of the term. We are afraid, we cannot agree with the submission. The law on the subject is well-settled as to when a Court or Tribunal or Forum should exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the applicant seeking condonation of delay. The applicant must establish sufficient cause besides explaining each day's delay when he seeks condonation of delay. In the case in hand, we find that the reasons set out are quite vague and do not disclose sufficient cause which prevented the petitioner from filing the petition within time. In our view the long delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The application for condition of delay is accordingly declined. Even then, we have considered the merits of the matter and we are of the view that the State Commission has taken pains in examining the matter in detail going by the report of the Court Commissioner. The order passed by the State Commission is justified on the strength of the material available on record and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error which calls for any interference of this Commission. Dismissed.