NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3019/2010

SARAT CHANDRA SAHOO - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARTHASARATHI @ PARTHADEV SAHOO - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARUNAV PATNAIK

05 Oct 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3019 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 26/05/2010 in Appeal No. 331/2010 of the State Commission Orissa)
1. SARAT CHANDRA SAHOOVillage - Jagannathpur, PO/PS - RaghunathpurJagatsinghpurOrissa ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PARTHASARATHI @ PARTHADEV SAHOOVillage - Mulisingh Sahar, P.O: Harisinghpur, P.S. TirtolJagatsinghpurOrissa ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Oct 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The case of the Complainant is that he had invested certain amount with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party had issued a certificate. However, when the Complainant approached for payment on maturity of the same, the Opposite Party refused to pay the said amount. Accordingly, the Complainant had filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum. The Opposite Party had entered into appearance before the District Forum and availed of the opportunity for filing written version, but avoided to file the same as a result of which the matter proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Party. The District Forum on the basis of material on record allowed the complaint. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party by filing appeal before the State Commission. Alongwith appeal an application for condonation of delay of 100 days was filed. It appears that the justification given for condoning the delay was that the Opposite Party had filed an application for recalling of the order of the District Forum which application was also dismissed and thereafter the appeal was presented. It is now well settled that neither the State Commission nor the District Forum have any power to recall or review the order passed by them and if any such application was filed in spite of the said position, it cannot be said to be a bona fide exercise. Therefore, the State Commission found that there was no sufficient ground for condoning the delay of 100 days. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision. It is pertinent to note that even though the Opposite Party had full opportunity to place his defence before the District Forum, yet the Opposite Party choose not to do so and allowed the matter to proceed ex parte against him. The matter does not end there. Even the appeal was filed with delay of 100 days. In this respect justification was given that the Opposite Party was pursuing the remedy of recalling the order of the District Forum. In the light of the settled position of law that the State Commission and the District Forum do not have any power of review, the filing of the application for review cannot be said to be bona fide exercise on the part of the Opposite Party. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the State Commission that the Opposite Party has not been able to explain any sufficient ground for condoning delay and the condonation application is rejected. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision is hereby dismissed. The Opposite Party was directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount including interest and cost in this Commission before the next date, i.e. 5.10.2010. The Opposite Party has deposited a sum of Rs.19,600/-, after calculating the interest upto 31.10.2010, in this Commission. The said amount shall be released in favour of the Complainant towards satisfaction of the award passed in his favour. The said amount be accordingly remitted by this Commission to the District Forum for payment to the Complainant. If any amount still remains to be paid after the payment of the said amount, the Complainant shall be free to proceed with the execution. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that warrant of arrest has been issued against the Petitioner. In view of this, warrant of arrest issued by the District Forum shall stand cancelled subject to however payment of balance amount, if any, which may be deposited with the District Forum within a period of six weeks from date of this order. The revision is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to cost. Dasti copy of order be given to Counsel for the Petitioner.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER