Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/287/2016

Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd.(Unit Relinace Power Ltd)Through Registrar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hira Lal (HUF)Through Hira Lal Agarwal - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Singh

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 287/2016

 

Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd. (Unit Reliance Power Ltd.) Plot no. 17-40 Vitthal Rai Nagar, Madhapura, Hyderabad through Registrar

Vs.

Hiralal (HUF) through Hiralal Agarwal r/o 61-B Pratap Colony, Kumher Gate,Bharatpur & ors.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 288/2016

 

Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd. (Unit Reliance Power Ltd.) Plot no. 17-40 Vitthal Rai Nagar, Madhapura, Hyderabad through Registrar

Vs.

Shashi Agarwal w/o Hiralal Agarwal r/o 61-B Pratap Colony, Kumher Gate,Bharatpur & ors.

 

 

 

2

FIRST APPEAL NO: 289/2016

 

Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd. (Unit Reliance Power Ltd.) Plot no. 17-40 Vitthal Rai Nagar, Madhapura, Hyderabad through Registrar

Vs.

Krishna Kumar Agarwal (HUF) s/o Kapoor Chand Agarwal through Singhal Kishan and Co. ,Inside Mathura Darwaja Bharatpur at present r/o B 245 Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur & ors.

 

Date of Order 21.3.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.M.M.Paliwal counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

All these appeals raised common question hence, are decided by this common order.

3

 

The appeals are filed against the order dated 15.1.2016 whereby the claim is allowed against the appellant.

 

Earlier on 12.6.2017 due to non-appearance of the appellant the matter was disposed of in non-prosecution. Vide judgment dated 5.2.2018 passed by the Hon'ble National Commission the matter was restored as the National Commission has directed the appellant to appear before the State Commission on 21.3.2018 but today Mr.M.M.Paliwal advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant but he is not ready to argue the matter but it is pending for admission since March 2016 hence, no further adjournment is allowed.

 

Perused the impugned judgment as well as appeal.

 

The contention of the appellant is that he is not deficient in service. The complaint is not maintainable against them. The duty of refund is of collecting bank which has not been impleaded as a party. Claim of refund is of civil nature hence, the appeal be allowed.

 

The Forum below has observed that refund was sent to the complainant but it could not be encashed and sent for

4

 

renewal to the appellant but inspite of the reminders renewal was not made. Hence, the Forum below has rightly held the appellants deficient as it was sent for renewal to the appellants and they have not provided the requisite services to the consumer.

 

The contention of the appellants is that collecting bank is a necessary party is not acceptable as for renewal the refund order was sent to the appellant not to the collecting bank and when renewal has not been made, it cannot be said that the matter relates to civil dispute and the Forum below has rightly allowed the claim.

 

In view of the above there is no merit in all the appeals and liable to be dismissed in limine.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm