Delhi

StateCommission

A/46/2015

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAMOD JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments: 06.05.2016

Date of Decision: 13.05.2016

Appeal No.46/15

 

(Arising out of the order dated 17.09.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.580/07 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-II, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, Videocon Tower,

Jhandewalan Extension,

New Delhi-110055.                                                       …........Appellant

 

Versus

Pramod Jain,

S/o Khajanchi Jain,

M-1, Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi.                                                                  ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. This order will dispose of application for condonation of delay moved by the appellant. The appeal is directed against order dated 17.09.2013 passed by District Forum-II in Complaint Case No.580/07. The appeal has been filed on 27.01.2015.  There is delay of 436 days in filing appeal. The plea of the appellant is that impugned order was never served upon it, the then authorised signatory namely Mr. Navin Trivedi left the servie of the bank in the end of 2012 and there was no body in the bank to follow up the present matter as new AR had to be appointed. Inadvertently, the appellant lost track of the matter, was astonished to receive information about the case after the coercive process of recovery certificate was issued by the District Forum in execution no. 576/2013.  Appellant sought for certified copy of impugned order which was provided in part on 12.12.2014 and remaining copy was supplied on 19.12.2014.  The appeal is within limitation if it is counted from the date on which the appellant got knowledge of the order.  The appellant has moved present application as abundant precaution.

 

2. Respondent has opposed the application by filing a reply stating that the order was well within the knowledge of appellant. Copy of order was served upon appellant on 24.09.2013 vide dispatch no.1895-96. No one should take wrongful gain for its own misdeed and negligence. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1994 SC 853, the person must come to court with clean hands.

 

3. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The respondent has not denied the fact that Mr. Navin Trivedi, the then representative of appellant had left the service. Date of 24.09.2013 pleaded by respondent as date of service, is date of alleged dispatch by the District Forum and not the date of service. I specifically asked the counsel for respondent to produce the envelope in which respondent received the order. From the said envelope something could be made out as to when the appellant received the order. But the counsel for respondent avoided to produce the said envelope by submitting that it was not traceable. This makes it probable that appellant did not receive the order.

 

4. Had the respondent received the order, it would not have allowed the sword to hang upon his head by not filing appeal within limitation. The appellant was not going to gain anything by delaying filing of appeal.

 

5. The decision referred to by respondent in its reply does not relate to limitation.  It is general that litigant must come to court with clean hands.

 

6. Law regarding condonation of delay is very liberal. Unless a party has malafide, the delay must be condoned.  In Civil Appeal No.10289/14 titled as A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that National Commission should have condoned the delay liberally.

 

7. Complaint related to revising of period of loan, revising of EMI from Rs.28694/- to Rs.29243/-. The loan was taken in June, 2006 and was settled premature in 2007. Now, the District Forum has directed refund of Rs.38,200/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from 03.07.2006 till realisation, recalculation of EMI, pay Rs.30,000/- for causing inconvenience and mental agony. After all the money with the appellant bank is money of the public at large. The same cannot be allowed to be disbursed lightly.

 

8. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed, the delay in filing appeal is condoned.

 

9. The matter may be listed for arguments on main appeal on 02.11.2016.

 

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         ​