STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/FA/4/2025 (Against the Order dated 28th March 2023 in Complaint DC/562/CC/232/2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Malappuram)

BRANCH MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - INDIAN BANK KONDOTTY BRANCH CHUKKAN BUILDING KURUPATH PO KONDOTTYMALAPPURAM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus PRAVEEN KUMAR P PRESENT ADDRESS - CHEPPILAKKUNNU HOUSE BLOCK ROAD KONDOTTY

673638MALAPPURAM,KERALA.

BRANCH MANAGER PRESENT ADDRESS - REP BY DIJIN HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE 2ND FLOOR DANA CENTRE MIDDLE HILL MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 26/03/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM I.A. No. 05/2025 in APPEAL No. 04/2025 ORDER DATED: 26.03.2025 (Against the Order in C.C. 232/2020 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

The Manager, M/s Indian Bank, Kondotty Branch, Chukkan Building, Kurupath P.O., Kondotty, Malappuram.

(By Adv. S. Sreekumaran Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. P. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, Manjeri, Cheppilakkunnu House, Block Road, Kondotty P.O., Malappuram-673 638.

nd

2. Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2 Floor, Dana Centre, Middle Hill, Malappuram District.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT This is an application praying for condoning the delay of 575 days in filing the appeal.

2. It is contended that the appeal is filed against the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the District Commission. The petitioner is the present manager of the bank. The petitioner came to know about the order only when the notice in the execution proceedings was received by the petitioner. It is also contended that the order under appeal was missing from the files of the petitioner. The petitioner searched the entire files. However, the order could not be traced out. In the said circumstances, there occurred a delay of 575 days in filing the appeal.

3. Heard.

4. 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.

5. 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”.

6. 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 exerci