SAMIR PRADHAN Vs. K JANARDHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, by the Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against a short order, dated 8.9.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram (for short "the State Commission"), in Appeal No.666/2015, declining to condone a delay of 72 days in filing of the Appeal by the Petitioner. Although at the first blush, the period of delay of 72 days does not appear to be large and could perhaps be condoned but having examined the application, seeking condonation of delay, in the light of the following factual background, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in declining to exercise its discretion to condone the said delay. We are convinced that the petitioner is abusing the process of the court to the detriment of the complainant.

(2.) Sometime in the year 2012, the Respondent herein had filed a Complaint against the Petitioner, alleging that having received consideration of Rs.5,65,000/- for supply of a Universal Spreading Machine, used for drying the fabrics, the Petitioner had failed to supply the same. In the Complaint, he had, inter alia, prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.9 lakh for mental agony and physical harassment, business loss, etc. including the payment of Rs.3,60,000/- as earnest money. The Petitioner chose not to contest the said Complaint, with the result that an ex parte order was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (for short "the District Forum"), on 31.3.2012, directing the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-, received as advance for the supply of machine, along with interest @ 13.25% p.a. from the date of the Complaint till payment. The Petitioner was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3 lakh towards mental agony and sufferings along with costs of Rs.3,000/-.

(3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed Appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner before this Commission by preferring a Revision Petition, with a delay of 336 days. Vide order dated 29.1.2015, by a speaking order, this Commission declined to condone the said delay and the Revision Petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Still dissatisfied, the Petitioner took the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was dismissed on 27.2.2015.