ORDER (ORAL) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Opposite Party against the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bench No.1, Jaipur, Rajasthan (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.139 of 2017. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 10.01.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagaur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.94 of 2015. -2- Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant took a loan amount of ₹25,800/- against the terms and conditions. The Complainant desired to return the said loan amount along with interest as per the terms and conditions and asked for the return of the secured gold but the Petitioner failed to honor the Complainant’s request. Consequently, the Complainant filed the case before the District Forum. Vide order dated 10.01.2017, the District Forum passed the following order: On making payment of the capital loan amount ₹25,800/- and the complete amount of interest at the rate of 23 per cent per year according to the receipt vide exhibit-1 on the above mentioned amount since dated 08.02.2012 till the date of filing complaint on dated 06.05.2015, Kanthi of god weighing 48.10 gram which had been kept as security on behalf of the complainant, respondents return the same to the complainant.It is being cleared that if at present Kanthi of gold, which had been kept as security by the complainant with the respondents side is not available, then in its place either 48.10 pure gold or its price according to the market price be provided to the complainant. This order is also given that due to the deficiency of service committed by the respondents, respondents will also provide ₹10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with it respondents will also provide to the complainant an amount of expenses of litigation ₹10,000/-. Compliance of order be done within one month.
District Forum passed the ex parte order against the Petitioner who did not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice of Complaint upon them. The Appeal against this ex parte order was also dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 30.01.2018. In the impugned order, the State Commission observed as under: -3- “It is clear from the order sheet dated 18.06.2015 of the District Forum that in spite of the service respondent has remained absent. This it statement of the appellant that notice was received by the Guard. From this fact, it is clear that notice had been received by them. Guard had received notice, this situation does not appear just because on the both acknowledgement receipts, the seal and signature of the appellant are present. Notices have been issued to both, Branch Manager and Chief Manager. Therefore, appeal has been filed on wrong facts and in spite of having served notice, without any reason appellant did not appear before the District Forum and with the purpose for causing delay in this matter, this appeal has been filed. Therefore appeal is not liable to be accepted. Subordinate District Forum has passed disputed order after considering on the documents and statements submitted by the complainant and there is no ground for interfering in it. Therefore appeal is unaccepted.” Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that although the process was served upon the guard but the Petitioner was not informed by the guard and hence, they were not aware of the service upon them. This contention of the Petitioner has been dealt with in the impugned order wherein the State Commission on the basis of documents before it had reached to the above conclusion and rejected the plea of the Petitioner. I find no reason to intervene in the impugned order. No illegality infirmity or perversity has been shown in the impugned order. The Revision Petition has no merit. The same is dismissed. |
