State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nalini, vs The Divisional Manager, on 31 May, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/862 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/08/2011 in Case No. CC/10/355 of District Trissur) 1. Nalini Nattika,Chavakkad,Thrissur Thrissur Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Divisional Manager,Sreeram Investment Ltd 1 st Floor,Arafath Towers,Veliyannur,Thrissur Thrissur Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERAL A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.862/11
JUDGMENT DATED. 31.5.2012
PRESENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA -- MEMBER Nalini, W/0 Thattil Giri, Nattika, Chavakkad, -- APPELLANT Thrissur. (By Adv.Dinesh Sajan.K.) Vs. The Divisional Manager, Sreeram Investment Limited, -- RESPONDENT 1st Floor, Arafath Towers, Veliyannur, Thrissur. (By Adv.Promod chandran) JUDGMENT SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.355/10 in the CDRF Thrissur. According to the appellant, she originally filed complaint along with an application to condone the delay in fling the same. But the complaint was returned with an order noted on the petition itself that a complaint was barred by limitation. Therefore, she preferred an appeal before this Commission by filing FA.563/09. As per order dated 19.4.10 this Commission directed the Forum to receive the complaint provided the complainant filed application to condone delay if the earlier application was not returned to her. The Forum was directed to dispose of the matter considering the grounds for the delay. Thereafter, CDRF, Thrissur issued notice to the respondent. But the respondent did not enter appearance. The Forum considered the grounds urged by the complainant for condoning the delay of 2491 days and held that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay. Accordingly the Forum dismissed IA.No.945/11. Consequently the complaint was also dismissed. Challenging the said order the complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. The complainant had availed from the opposite party a loan of Rs.1,75,000/- on 31.3.2000 on the security of the bus bearing registration No.KL 8 A 6525. She averred that the opposite party unlawfully seized the vehicle on 17.9.01. There was only a balance amount of Rs.68975/- outstanding to the opposite party. The vehicle had a value of Rs.5 lakhs at the time of illegal seizure. According to her materials worth Rs.14470/- were inside the vehicle at the time of illegal seizure. She claimed Rs.4,45,495/- as the amount due to her. In addition she claimed Rs.4 lakhs as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs. The delay in filing the complaint occurred for the reasons that based on her complaint the Kodungalloor police had registered Crime No.475/01 against the opposite party for illegally seizing the vehicle. Subsequently, the opposite party filed application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungalloor under Section 451 cr.p.c for getting custody of the vehicle. That application was allowed. Complainant challenged the order before the Hon. High Court. Subsequently, the complainant had filed complaints before the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone. She had also filed WPC No.10830/07 before the Hon. High Court challenging the order of the Transport Commissioner. The proceedings ended only on 17.3.09. The complainant thought that the application before the Forum would lie only after the other remedies were exhausted. Hence the delay happened. 3. So the ground urged for condoning the long delay of 2491 days in filing the complaint, in short, is that she was bonafide litigating the matter in other Forums. We have referred to the facts alleged in the complaint it is pertinent to notice that she availed loan on the security of the vehicle and she defaulted the loan. So as per the agreement, the vehicle was seized by the opposite party. Whether the seizure was made in a legal manner or not, is another matter but no unfair trade practice as alleged can be attributed. In fact, the illegality of the seizure must have been considered by the Magistrate Court while releasing the vehicle to the custody of the opposite party. That order was challenged before the Hon. High Court of Kerala but without success. In this case, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be made out from the allegations in the complaint. The delay in filing the complaint will have to be appreciated in the above background.
4. All along, in other proceedings referred to, the complainant was represented by a lawyer. So she resorted to other legal procedures as a matter of choice. Not only that she might have been well advised that since no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was involved complaint before the CDRF was not advisable. Under the above circumstances, there is no ground to say that she was bonafide litigating before other Forums. In short the CDRF was justified in dismissing the application to condone the long delay in filing the complaint. There is no merit in the appeal. Hence it is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER A.RADHA -- MEMBER [HONARABLE MR. K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER