STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/720/2024 null ICICI MERCHANT SERVICES PRIVATE LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - ICICI BANK LTD SECOND FLOOR DAFFODILS K P VALCON ROAD KADAVANTHRA COCHIN ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus K M AHAMED NIZAR PRESENT ADDRESS - HPCL PADOOR FILLING STATION RAJEEV NAGAR PERWARD KUMBLA KASARGOD ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM I.A. No. 140/2025 in APPEAL No. 720/2024 ORDER DATED: 18.03.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 138/2018 of DCDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER PETITIONER/APPELLANT:

ICICI Merchant Services Private Limited, 74, Kalpataru Square Off Andheri Kurla Road, Kondovita Lane, Andheri, Mumbai-400 059.

(By Adv. Rejith Rajendran)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

K.M. Ahmed Nizar, S/o Kunhi Mahin Haji, Dealer, HPCL, Padoor Filling Station, Rajeev Nagar, Perward, Kumbala, Kasaragod-671 321.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 2180 days in filing the appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted for hearing this application before serving notice to the respondent. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The object of the law of limitation is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. We may now go through the authorities on the point before proceeding further.

4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011 KHC 5263 :2011 (14) SCC 578) held in paragraph 5 as hereinbelow:-

“5. It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer fora”.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy(Died) by L.Rs. v.

Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 KHC 6197 : 2024 INSC 286 : 2024 Live Law (SC) 288, after considering various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, held that the law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself. It was further held in the above decision that a right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs.(Supra) that the courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause is explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence. The Apex Court also held that the merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay.

6. The National Commission in Liberty Videocon General Insurance Vs.

MS. Rathod in First Appeal No. 1189 of 2023 held that where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence, the delay condonation petition cannot be permitted. In the said case, the National Commission dismissed the application seeking for condoning the delay of 102 days in filing the appeal.

7. The National Commission in Appeal Execution No. 8 of 2024 held that when the app