Haryana

StateCommission

A/689/2019

SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.SINGAL

19 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                  First Appeal No.689 of 2019                                                             Date of Institution: 06.08.2019

Date of Decision: 19.08.2019

Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited, having its local office at Railway Road, Near Old LIC office, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal 121102 (Haryana) through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Late Sh.Sukhi  Ram R/o Inderpuri Mohalla, Palwal, Tehsil & District Palwal (Haryana).

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri D.K.Singhal, Advocate for appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 The brief facts of the present case as can be gathered from the record are that the opposite party was running a daily deposition scheme of Rs.100/- for 24 months.  The complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.33,700/- with the opposite parties on different dates from 23.08.2014 to 15.02.2016.    After maturity, he visited the office the OP to withdraw the maturity amount, but, O.P. did not pay single penny to him and refund to release the above said amount.  Thus there was deficiency and negligence in service on the part of the O.P. Thus, by filing complaint before the District Consumer Forum, the complainant sought refund of the deposited amount alongwith interest and compensation for harassment.

2.      O.P was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.04.2018.

3.      On appraisal of the pleadings of the complainant and evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint vide order dated 23.04.2018 and directed as under:-

“(a)    to pay the maturity amount of Rs.33,700/- to the complainant.

          (b)     to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental harassment financial hardship.

                   (C )   To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2100/-

All these directions are to be followed within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which opposite party would be further burdened to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as compensation in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.”

4.      Aggrieved against the order of the District Consumer Forum, the opposite party has come up in appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.D.K.Singhal, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of complainant had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      There is a delay of 438 days in filing of the present appeal the condonation of which has been sought by the appellant-opposite party by moving an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act which is supported with an affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Chaudhary, Junior Executive, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited.  The ground taken in the application on behalf of the appellant-opposite party is that appellant was not aware about the passing of impugned order dated 23.04.2018 as the summons issued by the Ld. District forum had never been served upon the appellant.  The appellant only come to know about the passing of the order dated 23.04.2018 in the month of May, 2019 when the appellant had received the summons in the execution petition.  Due to above said circumstances, the delay has occurred, which may be condoned in the interest of justice and under the circumstances of the case.

7.      While dealing with the application for condonation of delay, it is not disputed that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground of equity and generosity, but at the same time it is to be taken into consideration that in case of any legal infirmity is committed by the District Consumer Forum while passing the impugned order which is apparent on record, the same cannot be allowed to continue as it would amount to no order in the eyes of law.

8.      While dealing with the prayer for condonation of delay, reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme wherein it has been held that when the substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other, the former has to be performed. It has further been held that the words “Sufficient Cause” have to be interpreted to advance the cause of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok A.O. and others, 2005(3) SCC 752 has held as under:-

“11.What constitutes sufficient cause cannot be held down by hard and fast rules. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Misra (1975)(2) SCC (840) this Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction. In Brij Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi  Ram (ILR) (1918) 45 Cal. 94 (PC) it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari (AIR 1969 SC 575) a Bench of three-Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.”

 

9.      In the instant case the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order by ignoring the natural justice and therefore, I think that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Hence, the delay of 438 days in filing of the present appeal is condoned.

10.    It is not disputed that the amount of Rs.33,700/- has been deposited by the complainant.  Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned District Forum has directed the respondent-appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- against the deposited amount of Rs.33700/- principal amount, which is too much on higher side.  The learned District Forum has failed to appreciate that the respondent had neither established by cogent and material evidence of the alleged loss nor furnished break up thereof.  The non-appearance of the O.P. was neither intentional, even the case was at initial stage for service of O.P.  Thus there was no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the O.P. 

11.    In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced on record, the impugned order dated  23.04.2018 is set aside.  Since the complainant had already deposited an amount of Rs.33,700/- to the O.P., in the interest of justice and equity, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the opposite party-Sahara Credit Cooperative Society shall pay a lumpsum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

12.    The impugned order is modified in terms indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of. 

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any filed in this case.

 

August 19th, 2019                          Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

 

S.K