Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/51/2024

SHRI RAM FINANCE LIMITED - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOHAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PUNEET TULI

11 Sep 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	51 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	27.08.2024
Date of Decision	:	11.09.2024

 

 

 

 

Shriram Finance Limited through its Director/Incharge, SCF 101-102, Opposite BSNL Exchange, Phase 11, Sector 65, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab 160062

 

…Revision Petitioner/opposite party no.1

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Manohar Singh aged about 67 years, son of Sh.Mansa Singh resident of House No 1347, Morigate, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 

….Respondent No.1/Complainant

 

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its Managing Director/ Incharge. Commercial Vehicles, Manimajra, Chandigarh

 

….Performa Respondent/opposite party no.2

 

BEFORE:-

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

  

Present:-    Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate for the revision petitioner.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

 

M.A. No.771 of 2024 in RP/51/2024 (Condonation of delay):-

 

                   Alongwith this Revision Petition bearing no.51 of 2024, the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 has also filed this application for condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the same. Arguments of the revision petitioner, through his counsel, on this application were heard.

2.           For the reasons stated in this application, we are of the considered view that the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 has been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring this revision petition within the stipulated period. In this view of the matter, this application stand allowed and the delay of 77 days in filing the said revision petition is condoned. Accordingly, this application stands dispose off. 

 

Revision Petition No.51 of 2024:-

3.           This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 challenging the interim order dated  26.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh  (in short the District Commission) in consumer complaint bearing no.501 of 2023, vide which its defence was struck of, for non filing of written version within the stipulated period of 45 days.
4.           We have heard the Revision Petitioner and have also gone through the material available on record, very carefully.
5.           Undisputedly, service of revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 was affected on 06.11.2023, through speed post. A bare perusal of the notice of the complaint sent by the District Commission to the revision petitioner reveals that a copy of the complaint alongwith annexures therewith were sent to it and at the same time, revision petitioner was cautioned to file the written version within a period of thirty days extendable up-to 45 days in terms of Section 38 (3) (a) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. In pursuance thereof, Sh.Kartik, Advocate proxy for Sh.Sourav Duvedi, Advocate, put in appearance on behalf of revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 before the District Commission on 14.12.2023.  He was directed to file written version  alongwith evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner within the prescribed period of 45 days but the same was not done by it. Another opportunity was given to the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 to file the same, within the prescribed period. When, still written version/reply was not filed by 26.02.2024, the defence of revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 was struck of, vide order dated 26.02.2024.
6.           Before this Commission, a specific ground has been taken by the revision petitioner/opposite party no.1 to the effect that a junior counsel had been appointed to appear before the District Commission on 14.12.2023,  who had filed his memo of appearance  on behalf of the revisionist but thereafter he left the chamber and did not appear before the District Commission on the next date fixed. This ground has been taken by the revision petitioner in para no.2 and 3 of the revision petition, as under:-

“…..2. Thereafter, the revisionist appeared through counsel after getting the notice regarding the filing of the present consumer complaint having CC No. 501 of 2023 titled as Manohar Singh Versus Shriram Finance Limited and another is filed before the Ld. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, UT Chandigarh. That the junior counsel filed a memo of appearance on 14.12.2023 on behalf of the revisionist/Opposite party. That thereafter the junior counsel has left the chamber of the counsel engaged for handling this case.

 

3.That the case was fixed for 01.01.2024 but as the junior counsel has left working with the senior counsel and had not even informed about the whereabouts of the present case to his senior, no body appeared on the said date fixed and the case was adjourned for 26.02.2024.…..”

 

7.           A bare perusal of  contents of the revision petition  transpires that the revision petitioner was not vigilant and has rather acted in a negligent manner. As stated above, service of consumer complaint was affected through speed post on 06.11.2023 and the period of 45 days started from this date and expired on 20.01.2024 but no written version/reply was filed by the revision petitioner. Under these circumstances, if the District Commission has struck of the defence of the revision petitioner vide order dated 26.02.2024 i.e. after expiry of 45 days aforesaid,  we cannot say that there is any error in the order impugned, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the order dated 04.03.2020 passed in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86 and M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. Manisha Bhargava and Another, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 1240 of 2021, decided on 11.02.2021, wherein it was held that the consumer fora has no jurisdiction and/or power to accept the written statement beyond the period of 45 days.
8.           For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition stands dismissed at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost.        
9.           Resultantly, miscellaneous application bearing no.772 of 2024 (stay) stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
10.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
11.           The revision file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this  revision petition, be sent back immediately.      

         

Pronounced

11.09.2024

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Rg.