NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3715/2011

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH JAYARAM CHAVAN - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. S.K. JHA & ASSOCIATES

23 Feb 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3715 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2011 in Appeal No. 799/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.
123, Angappa Naicken Street
Chennai - 600001
Tamil Nadu
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SATISH JAYARAM CHAVAN
A/P Sadavali Sayadri Nagar Tal, Sagmeshwar,
Ratnagiri
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shankar Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Feb 2012
ORDER

Petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission alongwith the application to condone the delay. State Commission condoned the delay subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as  cost.  Costs  were  not  paid.  The  appeal  was

 

-2-

 

dismissed for non-compliance of the order to pay the cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Limited notice was issued for 23.2.2012 to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law which was subject to the payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the respondent which were addition to the cost of Rs.5,000/- already imposed by the State Commission. Petitioner was directed to bring a demand draft in the sum of Rs.55,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent on the  next date of hearing. Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation and other allied expenses which was to be de-hors the result of the revision petition.

Notice sent to the respondent has been received back duly served. Counsel for the petitioner states that litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- have been paid to the respondent. He has brought bankers cheque No.867626 dated 07.02.2012 in the sum of Rs.55,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent. Respondent is not present. To be proceeded ex-parte.

-3-

 

The State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of its order regarding payment of Rs.5,000/- as a condition precedent for condoning the delay. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, we had issued limited notice to the respondent to show cause as to why the impugned order be not set aside and the case remitted back to the State Commission subject to payment of further cost of Rs.50,000/-.

Since there is no contest on behalf of the respondent, the order passed on 11.01.2012 is made absolute. Impugned order of the State Commission is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.3.2012.

Petitioner shall tender the demand draft of Rs.55,000/- drawn in favour of the respondent before the State Commission on the date fixed. State Commission shall release the demand draft to the respondent for encashment.

 

-4-

 

Till the disposal of the stay application filed by the petitioner before the State Commission, execution proceedings pending before the District Forum shall remain stayed.

Dasti.

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

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.