Delhi

StateCommission

FA/49/2014

CHOLAMANDALAM DBS FINANCE. CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MADHUR CHAND & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision:18.11.2015

First Appeal- 49/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 13.08.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 19/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi)

Cholamandalam DBS Finance Co. Ltd.,

Having its office at Plot No.6, 2^nd Floor,

Pusa Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

 

And having its Registered office at:

Dare House, 2, N.S.C. Bosh Road,

Parrys, Chennai.

                                                                                        ….Appellant

Versus

1. Shri Madhur Chand

S/o Shri Ishwar Chand

 

2. Smt. Swarn Chand

W/o Shri Ishwar Chand

 

3. Ms. Mridul Chand

 

All R/o A-2/89, First Floor,

Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058.

 

4. M/s. Allied Printers,

B-56, Naraina Industrial Area,

Phase-2, New Delhi-110028.

 ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP 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. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein prayer is made for setting aside the impugned judgement dated 13.8.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 19/2012.
2. Along with the appeal, there is an application for condonation of delay of 125 days in filing the appeal.
3. It is stated that after receipt of the notice of complaint case issued by the Ld. District Forum, the case was assigned to Shri Amit Sinha, Advocate by the appellant company and was directed to file the written statement/reply before the District Forum.  However, the said Counsel neither appeared before the District Forum nor informed the appellant company about the status of the above mentioned case.  The Counsel also did not file any reply/written statement on behalf of the appellant company, as such the appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 16.10.12.  It is stated that when the aforesaid Counsel did not inform the appellant company about the status of the above mentioned case despite repeated enquiries, the official of the appellant company visited the District Forum in the last week of October, 2013 whereby he was informed that the matter had already been decided on 13.8.13.  The official of appellant immediately applied for certified copy of the impugned judgement which was delivered on 19.11.13 and thereafter the appeal has been filed on 15.1.14.  It is stated that in these circumstances, the delay of 125 days has occurred in filing this appeal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had done everything for conducting the case before the Ld. District Forum. It is stated that the appellant had appointed Counsel and had also given the relevant papers to the Counsel despite that the Counsel did not appear.  The application is supported with the affidavit of AR of the appellant Co.  It is stated that in above circumstances, delay has occurred in filing this appeal.  It is further submitted that for the lapse on the part of the Counsel, the appellant be not allowed to suffer.
5. It is further submitted that due to aforesaid reasons, the appellant could not contest the complaint case before the District Forum.  It is stated that the appellant has a good case on merits also.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that loan amount availed by the respondents/complainants was Rs.1,10,00,000/- which was to be repaid with interest within 172 months.  It is submitted that respondents/complainants had offered to foreclose the loan account and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.57,14,467/- towards full and final settlement of the loan amount against the property inclusive of all pre-closure charges and other outstanding of the appellant company.  It is further stated that at the time of foreclosing the account, respondents/complainants had stated that they were satisfied with the service of the appellant and had no claim whatsoever in any manner.  It is stated that the necessary charges were paid by the respondents/complainants and even the property documents were also got released from the appellant/OP.  It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents/complainants were not entitled for any amount. 
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that the respondents/complainants had filed a false case against the appellant/OP.    
7. After some arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents/complainants has stated that the respondents have no  objection  if  the  delay  is condoned and ex-parte judgement

 

 

passed against the appellant be set aside and appellant be given a chance to contest the case on merits.  However, it is stated that for causing delay in the matter, cost be imposed on appellant/OP.

8. We have gone through the material on record as well as considered the submissions made. Considering that the appellant/OP has not been able to contest the case on merits due to lapse on the part of its Counsel and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it appropriate that the delay be condoned and appellant/OP be given chance to contest the case on merits.  Further Counsel for respondent/complainant has also given no objection for allowing the application for delay as well as appeal subject to payment of costs, we condone the delay and accept the appeal and set aside the impugned ex-parte judgement subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents/complainants.
9. Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 18.1.16.
10. On the said date, the appellant/OP shall pay costs to the respondents/complainants and shall also file its written statement.  Thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
11. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned

 

 

 

 

 

 

District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member

 

(OP Gupta)

Member(Judicial)

sa