Delhi

StateCommission

FA/444/2014

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVENDER PAL CHUGH - Opp.Party(s)

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 24.08.2015

First Appeal- 444/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Oriental Bank of Commerce

A-25, Industrial Area, G.T. Karnal Road

New Delhi-110033

 

Also At:

 

E-Block, Harsha Bhawan, Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001

(As appellant has left the address i.e. 4^th & 5^th

Floor, 4E, Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110055)

 

 

                                                                                       …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

Devender Pal Chugh

AG-1/180B, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi-110018

 

                                                                                     …..Respondent

CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

                                  

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.             In this appeal challenge has been made to ex-parte judgment dated 31.03.2014 by which the appellant herein i.e. OP before the District forum has been directed as under:

        “i. Return the original property documents of the complainant taken as Collateral Security forthwith;

        ii. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by him.

        iii. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.”

2.             The background of the case is that a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that he had taken loan in the year 1988 from the bank and at that time he had handed over title deeds of his property to the appellant bank as a collateral security. He had alleged that he had repaid the entire loan amount and had arrived at a settlement with appellant. However, the property documents were never returned to him. The respondent/complainant had alleged that he had written several letters to the appellant bank but of no result. Ultimately he had to file the complaint before the District Forum.

3.             Perusal of impugned order shows that the appellant bank had not contested the case before the District Forum as was proceeded ex-parte. The Ld. District Forum had taken ex-parte evidence of the respondent/complainant and after hearing him, the directions as stated above have been issued against the appellant bank.

4.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid ex-parte judgment present appeal is filed.

5.             Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was served before the District Forum with the complaint case filed on 21.10.2009 by the respondent/complainant. A representative of appellant, namely, Sh. Satish Kumar, had appeared before the District Forum on 04.08.2010 and took time for filing written version and thereafter the appellant bank engaged a lawyer and gave all the necessary instructions papers to him for contesting the case. It is submitted that the said lawyer did not appear before the District Forum as a result of which appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 05.07.2011. When the appellant bank came to know about it, immediately a panel lawyer Mr. Pradeep Sharma, was appointed who moved an application on 21.02.2012 for setting aside ex-parte order dated 05.07.2011. However, the application of appellant bank was dismissed by the Ld. District Forum on 21.02.2012. The said order was also challenged by filing an appeal before State Commission on 25.05.2012. However, the appeal was also dismissed in default on 27.11.2013. Thereafter, for challenging the said order further instructions were awaited from the senior authorities, in the meanwhile, impugned ex-parte judgment was passed. Accordingly, the present appeal is filed.

6.             Ld. counsel for the appellant has contended that the allegation against the appellant in complaint case are serious in nature. It is submitted that a great prejudice shall be caused to appellant if impugned judgment is not set aside. It is submitted that the respondent/complainant had filed a highly belated claim which was not even legally maintainable before the District Forum being time barred.         It is further submitted that the appellant bank be not allowed to suffer for the lapse on the part of their counsel. Ld. counsel for appellant/OP has relied upon judgment of National Commission titled Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Kusum Bhandari and Ors. II (2015) CPJ 151 National Commission. It is stated that the relevant bank record is also not available. It is further submitted that respondent/complainant had approached the Ld. District Forum after a lapse of over 7 years for the return of documents. It is contended that the complaint case filed is highly belated, false and frivolous.

7.             On the other hand, respondent/complainant who is present in person has submitted that appellant bank is trying to harass him. It is submitted that the bank had been proceeded ex-parte due to its own fault and is trying to delay the matter further unnecessarily. It is submitted that appellant bank has no defence worth contesting the present case.

8.             We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.

9.             There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of appellant bank that the advocate of the bank did not put in appearance before the Ld. District Forum and also did not inform about the progress of the case. The said affidavit is not controverted by respondent, the affidavit shows that the appellant/bank had engaged a counsel, before the Ld. District Forum for conducting the case on its behalf. The allegation against the appellant bank are serious in nature. The appellant bank would not gain anything by deliberately not appearing in the matter as is contended. There is no reason to disbelieve the appellant. The appellant bank be not allowed to suffer for lapse on the part of its lawyer who did not put in appearance nor contested the case before the District Forum and made the appellant bank suffer. A great prejudice shall be caused to appellant bank if chance is not given to it to contest the case on merits. The ends of justice can be met only for if appellant bank is allowed to prove its case on merits. The delay, if any, caused to the respondent can be compensated with costs.

10.            In view of the above discussion, we allow the appeal and set aside the ex-parte judgement passed by Ld. District Forum, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent and remand back the matter to the Ld. District Forum with a direction to Ld. District Forum to give an opportunity to appellant to contest the case.

11.            The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 28.10.2015. On the said date appellant/bank shall pay costs to the respondent and shall also file its written statement and thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

12.            It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.

13.            A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be sent to the parties and to the Ld. District Forum.

14.            FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released in his favour as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.     

 

       (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

 

Rakeeba