Delhi

StateCommission

RP/37/2015

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEENAKSHI SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

28.08.2015

 

RP-37/15

Present:       Ms. Isha, Counsel for the Petitioner.

                   None for the Respondent.

 

          Counsel for the petitioner has filed the affidavit of Sh. Nitish Negi, Adv. counsel for the petitioner regarding service of Dasti Notice to the respondent.  According to the affidavit, Sh. Negi, Adv. tried to serve the respondent on 26.06.2015 in the District Forum, Udyog Sadan inside the Forum as well as outside the Forum and respondent refused to accept the same. Service deemed sufficient. The respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

 

          Heard on application for condonation of delay. Challenge in the present appeal is made to order dated 06.11.2012 vide which the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.  The appeal has been filed on 21.05.2015.  There is delay of about two and half year.  The petitioner has moved an application for condonation of said delay. But perusal of the application shows that it has been drafted casually. It is not a case of petitioner that it was not served with the notice of the case in District Forum. Rather the order sheet reveals that on 24.08.2012 Sh. Jaipal Singh, counsel for OP/Petitioner herein appeared and filed memo of appearance.  He was directed to file his Power of Attorney alongwith written version on the next date i.e. 06.11.2012 subject to costs of Rs.1000/-.  On 06.11.2012 none appeared for petitioner and thus, it was proceeded exparte.

 

          The allegations made in the application for condonation of delay is that passing of ex-parte order came to its knowledge when appeal filed by the respondent was listed before the DRAT for final argument.  Respondent’s husband stated that there would be exparte order before the District Forum in the complaint and in the suit where defence of the appellant had already struck off.  However, it does not specify the date on which the appeal filed by respondent was listed by DRAT or the date when petitioner came to know about the exparte proceedings in the District Forum.  The date of knowledge cannot be ascertained even from the list of dates filed by the petitioner.  The said list jumps from 19.03.2013 to March, 2015. It does not make a mention from March, 2013 to December, 2013, January, 2014 to December, 2014 and exact date of March, 2015 when the petitioner allegedly came to know about the exparte order.

 

          In cases before consumer court condonation of delay has to be scrutinized with caution as these are summary proceedings which have to be disposed of within the statutory period of three months from the date of filing.  Delay of two and half year cannot be condoned on mere whisper.

 

          The application is dismissed.

 

          With this, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Accordingly, the revision is also dismissed.

 

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 (O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)