THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 512/2021
M/s TVS Credit Services Limited,
A public limited company under the companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at Jayalakshmi Estate,
No.29, Haddows Road, Nungamabakam,
Chennair-600006 and Branch Office,
At # 1613/31, Vishnupriya Tower,
2nd Floor, KBG Extension, MKK Road,
Nagappa Block, Devaiah Park, Bangalore-560 021
Represented by its Deputy Manager Leal,
Sri. Shrinivasprasad.
….Appellant/s.
(By Shri/Smt. Shridharamurthy, Adv.,)
-Versus-
1. Raghunandan Appa Kumtekar,
Aged about 28 years,
Occupation: Fisherman,
Residing at Gabithwada Majali, Karwara.
2. M/s Akshaya Motors,
Authorized Main Dealer for Two wheeler,
TVS Motor Co., Ltd., Kaiga Road,
Habbuwada, Karwar.
……….. Respondent/s
:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party in complaint No.73/2009 filed this appeal against the order dated:20.12.2019 passed by Uttara Kannada District Commission which directed the Opposite Parties to return the vehicle to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses and also filed an application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 540 days in filing this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
Complainant availed a loan in order to purchase TVS Jupiter Classic (BSIV) Disc. Vehicle bearing registration No.KA-30-V-3880 on 06.09.2018 from Opposite Party No.1 on the basis of payment of EMI of Rs.2,512/- which commenced from 07/10/2018, but the complainant had paid the EMIs only up-to 2019 and next EMI was due on 07/07/2019 to 07.08.2019. During that period, the Opposite Parties have seized the vehicle without any reason and without informing the complainant, against which, the complainant filed a complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service. After trial, the District Commission directed them to return the vehicle which was seized by them along with reliefs as stated above.
3. The Opposite Parties have not appeared before the District Commission to take any defense and now filed this appeal to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission along with delay condonation application for the delay of 540 days in filing this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that there is a delay of 540 days in filing the appeal as because they could not received the documents in time from Karwar and the order cannot be complied as the vehicle was already sold in auction and the same cannot be taken back and hence they have not filed any appeal and the appellant has come to the knowledge about the order only on receipt of the notice in E.P.No.3/2020 and hence there is a delay of 537 days in filing the appeal. The counsel for appellant further argued that the order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law and for the bona-fide reasons they could not file the appeal in time. Hence, prays to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission by condoning the delay.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal and application filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act R/w 151 of CPC and affidavit sworn by one Shrinivasprasad who is a GPA holder of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 has stated that the order passed by the District Commission at Karwar and other connected documents were not received well within time from Karwar and this appellant is at Bangalore. The order passed by the District Commission cannot be complied as the vehicle which was seized by them was already sold in auction and same cannot be taken back and he came to know about the order only after the execution and hence prays to set-aside the order.
6. The reasons narrated in the affidavit are not satisfactory to condone the delay of 540 days in fling this appeal. The appellants have not produced any materials to show that his counsel suffered ill-health after passing an order. The appellant also not narrated any valid reasons why he has not appeared before the District Commission to take any defense in spite of service of notice by the District Commission. In the absence of such materials, the delay cannot be condoned. Hence, the delay application filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 540 days in filing the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Further, we found there is no any reason to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission. When the Opposite Parties have placed Ex-parte, the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and allowed the complaint. As such, no interference is required. Under these circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed both on I.A. filed U/s 5 of the Limitation Act and on merits. No costs.
The impugned order dated:30.01.2019 passed by the Mysore District Commission in C.C.no.240/2018 is hereby confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
