20.05.2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Heard advocate for appellant on admission.

2.      The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.10.10.2022 passed in CC.No.541/2021 on the file of 2^nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in not cancelling the hypothecation of the vehicle in question and also prayed to return the spare keys of the vehicle along with compensation and costs.  After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties cancel the hypothecation of the vehicle Tempo Traveller bearing Registration No.KA-02-AF-0568 and also directed to restore the set of spare keys to the complainant along with compensation and costs.

3.      The appellants further submit that after service of the counsel for appellants filed vakalath before the District Commission, but, could not file version because the official to whom the work was assigned has left the job without intimating or handing over his responsibility to the other official of the company.  Further submits that the complainant was due to the tune of Rs.1,34,830=09 to the Opposite Parties, since the same was not cleared, the appellants have not cancelled the hypothecation of the vehicle.  The non-appearance of the appellants/ Opposite Parties before the District Commission is due to bonafide mistake on their part, but, not intentional.  Hence, prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint.

5.      On perusal of the memorandum of appeal and the Order passed by the District Commission and the documents, we noticed that the appellant after service of notice has appeared through counsel and filed vakalath before the District Commission, but, not filed any version to take defence upon the allegation made by the respondent.  The reasons assigned by the appellants for non-filing of the version before the District Commission is not convincing and satisfactory.  The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. 

6.      Further the appellants have also filed an application u/5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 154 days (as per office note) in filing the appeal and sworn affidavit that after receiving the certified copy of the Order, immediately approached to obtain the permission from higher authorities, entrusted the same to the present counsel to prefer an appeal.  Hence, prayed to condone the delay.  The reasons assigned by the appellants to condone the delay are not satisfactory and they are totally negligent in all aspects.  The appellants are also negligent in contesting the case before the District Commission and also before this Commission.  Hence, the appeal fails on merits and also on delay.  The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with Law and no interference is required.  Hence, the following;

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant/respondent.

Forward free copies to both parties.

      Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER

KCS*