ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2017
(Against the judgment & order dated 20-02-2002 in Complaint Case No.263/2000 of the District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra)
- Branch Manager, Central Bank of India
Branch Maniyar, District Balia
- Regional Manager, Central Bank of India
Regional Office Lanka, Varanasi.
- Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India
Zonal Office 23
Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.
- General Manager
Central Bank of India, Chandramukhi
Nariman Point, Mumbai
...Appellants
Vs.
Mohd. Farooq Khan
S/o Sri Mateen Ahmad
R/o 6/42, Awkash Nagar
Chopan Post, Post Chopan
District Sonbhadra
...Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
For the Appellant : Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Dated : 09-04-2018
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is an appeal filed before State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against judgment and order dated 20-02-2002 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sonbhadra in Complaint
Case No. 263/2002 Mohd. Farooq Khan V/s Branch Manager, Central Bank of India and three others whereby the District Consumer Forum has allowed complaint and passed following order in Hindi.
परिवादी का वाद इस सीमा का स्वीकार किया जाता है कि विपक्षीगण को यह आदेश दिया जाता हैकि परिवादी को दये पेन्शन
:2:
यथाशीघ्र निर्धारित कर दिनांक 7.6.99 से अब तक कुल देय धनराशि दो माह में अदा कर दें। इसके अलावा उसके भविष्य में प्रतिमाह देय पेन्शन अदा करेंगें। इसके अलावा वर्ष 1998 के लिए यदि कोई वेतन वृद्धि नियमानुसार दिया जा सकता है तो उस पर पुन: विचार कर उचित कार्यवाही करें। परिवादी ने यदि सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इण्डिया द्वारा उसे पत्र दिनांकित 20.12.99 में देय मु0 172817.76 रू0 की सामान्य भविष्य निधि के संबंध में देय धनराशि अब तक प्राप्त नहीं की है तो विपक्षीगण उक्त धनराशि का भुगतान परिवादी को वाराणसी शाखा से यथाशीघ्र एक माह में अवश्य कर दें। परिवादी को विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध इस वाद का खर्च व क्षतिपूर्ति आदि के रूप में मु0 2000.00 रू0 (दो हजार रूपया) भी विपक्षीगण से दिलायी जाती है। जिसे एक माह में भुगतान कर दिया जाया।
The appeal has been filed by opposite parties of the complaint after expiry of imitation prescribed with application for condoning delay of appeal.
Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellants appeared.
None appeared for respondent despite sufficient service of notice.
I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused records.
In application moved for condoning delay of appeal it has been stated by appellants that the respondent/complainant moved application for execution of impugned judgment and order after expiry of 12 years from the date of judgment. Thereafter appellants came to know about impugned judgment and order for the first time on 08-02-2017 when recovery certificate was received by the bank.
In affidavit filed in support of application moved for condoning delay of appeal also it has been stated that the bank came to know about
:3:
the impugned judgment and order on 08-02-2017 when the Regional Office of the bank situated at Varanasi received recovery certificate issued by Collector. Thereafter appeal has been filed on 02-03-2017 after having obtained certified copy of impugned judgment and order on 23-02-2017.
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment and order has been passed exparte without service of notice on appellants.
It has been further submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment and order was passed on 20-02-2002 and execution of impugned judgment was moved by respondent/complainant after expiry of 12 years. Thereafter appellants came to know about the impugned judgment on 08-02-2017 when the recovery certificate was received by the office of the appellant bank. As such there is sufficient ground for delay in filing appeal and the delay should be condoned.
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the dispute raised in complaint is not a consumer dispute and the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law as well as without jurisdiction.
I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants.
As mentioned above the impugned judgment and order is dated 20-02-2002 and the appeal has been filed on 02-03-2017 after 15 years.
Perusal of impugned judgment and order shows that the appellants did not turn out before District Consumer Forum despite sufficient service of notice.
In view of above I find no sufficient ground to condone such a long delay.
In view of above delay condonation application is rejected and appeal is dismissed as time barred.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
Pnt.
