KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is a revisional application preferred against the order no. 12 dated 24/03/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur in CC No. 60/2020.

Brief facts of the revisionists’ case are that, the complainant respondent had availed a loan from the revisionist on 09/06/2018, to purchase a two-wheeler from the proforma respondents. In July 2018, the said vehicle had been taken by the proforma respondent along with the original documents, without any satisfactory explanation, stating that the EMI had to be paid by the complainant respondent, to the proforma respondent till the time EMI deduction is started by the revisionist company, but the same had not been done. It was also alleged that, the proforma respondent had made extensive use, of the vehicle of the complainant respondent and the vehicle had not been returned to the complainant respondent for a long period of time and the complainant respondent had been asked to visit their office at Malda. When the complainant respondent, visited the office on 16/04/2019, they had been informed that, the vehicle had been in extensive use, for which reason the vehicle was not in the condition, the proforma respondent had taken it. The complainant respondent had been asked to deposit Rs. 27,000/- (Twenty- Seven thousand) only, for the NOC and the release of the vehicle. The complainant respondent, made the necessary payments and once the vehicle was in her custody, she found that the engine and major parts had been changed. Thereafter, on bringing the same to the notice, the amount of Rs. 27,000/- (Twenty- Seven thousand) only, had been refunded by the proforma respondent and had taken the custody of the vehicle. Even after, several requests and after approaching, the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and FBP, Dakshin Dinajpur, no solution could be found following which, she filed this case. Hence this case.

Thereafter, the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, issue notice dated 06/01/2021, to the revisionists for their appearance on 04/04/2021, but due to the pandemic, there was delay in receiving the notice by the revisionists. The revisionists then assigned the matter to their Advocate, who could not appear before the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, because of the out break of COVID-19 Pandemic, and the resultant lockdown, for which reason the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. On 19/04/2021, the revisionists entered the appearance before the Ld. Commission and filed an application, to vacate the ex-parte order dated 03/03/2021, along with the written version. But the Ld. Commission rejected the said application and the revisionists on 07/10/2021, preferred a review application before the Ld. Commission against the order dated 19/04/2021, which also was rejected vide the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the revisionists had preferred this instant revision on the ground, that the Ld. Commission below erred in law, while passing the impugned order. It was further contended that the Ld. Commission failed to appreciate the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in view of the pandemic situation, vide its order dated 10/01/2022, pronounced in the matter of Suo-Motu Writ petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, wherein, it was directed, in cases where the limitation would have expired between 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022, notwithstanding, the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have limitation period of 90 days from 01/03/2022. In this regard the Hon’ble National Commission vide its order no. 7 dated 14/01/2022 also issued similar directions.

After, hearing the Ld. Advocate for the revisionists only as none appeared on behalf of the complainant respondent and on perusal of the impugned order, as well as  the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in MA/21/2022, MA/665/2021 and  Suo-Motu Writ petition (C ) No. 3/2020, along with the order No. 7 of 2022 dated 14/01/2022 passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC, it transpires that computation  of delay in matters in which limitation expires between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022 would be further extended by 90 days from 01/03/2022 till 29/05/2022. In the instant case also, the impugned order reflects that, the limitation had expired within the above period prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, following which and in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the impugned order needs to be set aside. As such the instant revisional application succeeds.

It, is therefore

ORDERED

That the instant revisional application be and the same is allowed, but without cost.

The impugned order no. 12 dated 24/03/2022, is hereby set aside and the, written version filed on 19/04/2021, be accepted and the case do proceed from that stage.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be also sent to the, Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, for necessary compliance.