NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2061/2009

M/S. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.K. SAINI - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. SURI & COMPANY

05 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2061 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 17/03/2009 in Appeal No. 299/2009 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. M/S. CITI FINANCIAL CONSUMER FINANCE INDIA LTD.Throgh Its Authorised Representative 3, Pushp Vihar New Delhi-110062Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M.K. SAINIS/o. Lachamann Das R/o. h. no. 12, Golden Park Ambala Cantt, ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Aug 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

With the consent of counsel appearing on both sides, the matter was finally heard. The District Forum had allowed the complaint and ordered payment of Rs.4,25,000/- on account of loss suffered by the complainant due to non-execution of sale deed/non-refund of advance payment; Rs.11,476/- stated to be illegally withdrawn by the opposite party and cost of Rs.20,000/-. This order was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission. However, there was delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. The State Commission was not satisfied with the explanation given for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and as such the application for condonation of delay was rejected. The State Commission very cursorily commented upon the merits of the matter and dismissed the appeal. In fact, we had directed the complainant/respondent to file an affidavit as to whether any proceedings have been filed by him for recovery of Rs.4,25,000/- alleged to have been paid by the complainant to Jagpal Saini on account of which compensation to that extent was ordered by the District Forum. The complainant in the affidavit has stated that no proceeding has been initiated by him for recovery of the said amount. Besides this, it is stated in the affidavit that the said amount was paid by cash and prima facie no proof has been placed from where the said amount has been arranged or withdrawn. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to be heard on merits even though explanation given by the petitioner for condonation of delay is not totally satisfactorily. Therefore, while allowing the revision, the order of the State Commission refusing to condone the delay is hereby set aside subject to, however, payment of Rs.15,000/- by the petitioner, out of which, Rs.7500/- shall be deposited in the Legal Aid Cell of the State Commission and Rs.7500/- shall be paid to the respondent. The revision stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The matter is remanded to the State Commission for hearing on merits. Parities shall appear before the State Commission on 29.09.2010. The amount, which is already deposited with this Commission shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit and shall abide by the final order which may be passed by the State Commission. A copy of this order be given Dasti to both the parties.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER