Haryana

StateCommission

A/1613/2017

THE MANAGER KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TEJVIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

PARAS MONEY GOYAL

17 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.1613 of 2017

 

 

Date of Institution:27.02.2017

Date of final hearing:17.05.2023

Date of pronouncement:30.05.2023

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, GT Road, Panipat, District Panipat.

…Appellant.

 

Through counsel Mr.Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

Tejvir Singh son of Shri Maha Singh, R/o House No.151, Village Shahar Malpur, Tehsil Samalakha, District Panipat.

….Respondent.

 

Through counsel Mr.R.K. Bamal, Advocate

 

Present:-    Mr. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. P.M. Goyal, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. R.K. Bamal, counsel for respondent.

 

 

First Appeal No.1005 of 2018

 

Date of institution:28.08.2018

Date of final hearing:17.05.2023

Date of pronouncement:30.05.2023

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Tejvir Singh son of Shri Maha Singh, R/o House No.151, Village Shahar Malpur, Tehsil Samalakha, District Panipat.

…..Appellant.

Through counsel Mr.R.K. Bamal, Advocate

 

 

Versus

 

The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank, GT Road, Panipat, District Panipat.

….Respondent.

 

Through counsel Mr.Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. P.M. Goyal, Advocate

 

 

Present:-    Mr. R.K. Bamal, counsel for the appellant.

                   Mr. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. P.M. Goyal, counsel for respondent.

CORAM:   Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member.
 

 

O R D E R

 

S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:

 

          Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing F.A No.1613 of 2017 and F.A. No.1005 of 2018 will be disposed of as both have been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.10.2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (now learned ‘District Commission’) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Tejvir Singh) was allowed and the opposite party (‘OP’) was directed as under:-

“…So, the OPs are directed to issue No Dues Certificate of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-60E-4467 having loan agreement No.TFE-2350072 within a period of thirty days from the date of passing of this order to the complainant, leaving the OP to agitate at the competent Forum for the other loan obtained vide agreement No.TFE 2775698 in the name of complainant. OP is further directed to pay Rs.3300/- to the complainant on account of mental harassment and agony suffered at the hands of the OPs by not giving the complainant NOC of the loan account No.TFE 2350072 despite paying the whole loan amount to the OPs and for the litigation expenses.”

 

2.                Brief facts of complaint filed before learned District Commission are that the complainant was the registered owner of vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration No.HR-60E-4467 make Eicher-33. The complainant had obtained loan vide loan account No.TFE-2350072 from the OP vide agreement dated 11.12.2013. The complainant had to repay the said loan in 24 installments and has paid the entire installments of loan and now nothing is due towards him. It was further alleged that the OP issued account statement showing the repayment of said loan. Thereafter, he requested the OP to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of said loan so that he may get cancelled HPA mentioned in the registration certificate of the said vehicle, but the OPs failed to do so. Thus, there was deficiency in service on part of the OP and prayed for issuance of No Dues Certificate alongwith compensation on the ground of mental harassment as well as litigation expenses.

3.                Upon notice, OP appeared before learned District Commission and filed its written version and submitted therein that the complainant first obtained a loan vide account No.TFE-2350072 and re-paid the loan amount  by planning to obtain afresh loan to damage the OP. Later on, he took a loan under loan agreement No.TFE-2775698. It was submitted that in the said loan account, he has not made the repayment of his EMIs against the said loan account. He was avoiding the repayment of the loan on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, notice U/s 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has also been served upon him, but he has not made the payment of loan account. Finally, it was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                After hearing, learned counsel for the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint as mentioned above in para 1^st supra.

5.                Aggrieved from the impugned order, OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) has preferred First Appeal No.1613 of 2017  for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.10.2017, passed by learned District Commission and complainant (Tejvir Singh) has preferred the First Appeal No.1005 of 2018 for modification/enhancement of award passed by the learned District Commission vide its impugned order dated 04.10.2017.

6.                Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for Mr. P.M. Goyal, learned counsel for appellant in First Appeal No.1613 of 2017 and respondent in First Appeal No.1005 of 2018 as well as by Mr. R.K. Bamal, Advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No.1005 of 2018 and respondent in First Appeal No.1613 of 2017.  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence have been led on behalf of the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.                Before going on merits, this Commission has to deal with delay part which was occurred in the filing of both the present appeal. There is a delay of 49 days in filing of the First Appeal No.1613 of 2017, which is hereby condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

8.                On the other hand, there is a delay of 294 days in filing the First Appeal No.1005 of 2018.  Appellant-complainant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of 294 days wherein,  it is alleged that the impugned order dated 04.10.2017 was prepared on 09.10.2017, but when the same was received by counsel even if the time period for limitation is to be taken from the date of preparation, the appeal was to be filed on or before 08.11.2017. Thereafter, the appellant approached the present counsel to appear in First Appeal No.1613 of 2018 for putting appearance for 20.04.2018. The present counsel appeared on 20.04.2018 and the case was adjourned for 13.08.2018 for arguments. Thereafter, only on 12.08.2018, the present counsel examined the impugned judgment and suggested the appellant to file an appeal. He further argued that appellant is a poor villager and illiterate person and the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful but on account of the reasons mentioned herein above.

9.               Arguments heard on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits of appeal. File perused.

10.              However, the contention of learned counsel for appellant to condone delay is of no avail.  A period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act and rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that delay of each and every day should be explained properly with some reasonable cause but in the appeal in hand, no reasonable ground and sufficient cause has been pleaded or proved.  Thus, inordinate delay for more than 294 days, cannot be condoned as there is no justifiable reason or sufficient cause to condone the same.

11.              Here reliance can be placed on the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days’ delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

          In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

    In 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC) – Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:-

“It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for filing appeals and revisions in Consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the Consumer disputes will get defeated, if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras”.

12.              In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay for 294 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.

13.              Even on merits also, as per the basic averments raised in both the appeals including the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, the foremost question which requires adjudication by this Commission is as to whether the original complainant (Shri Tejvir Singh) is entitled to get any relief/compensation or not?

14.              It is an admitted fact by the OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) that the complainant had paid entire loan amount obtained against agreement No.TFE-2350072. It is also an admitted fact that the claim in the complaint filed before learned District Commission was pertaining only for non-issuance of No Dues Certificate of vehicle bearing registration No.HR-60E-4467. However, despite re-payment of full amount with regard to loan agreement No.TFE-2350072, OP failed to issue No Dues Certificate to the complainant. So, the deficiency in service on the part of appellant-OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) stands proved and question is answered in the affirmative. As far as the question regarding other loan which was obtained by the complainant vide loan agreement No.TFE-2775698 is concerned, the OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) was granted liberty by learned District commission to agitate before competent Forum.

15.                Thus, learned District Commission rightly observed that the appellant-OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) was deficient in service and rightly issued the directions as mentioned above. Impugned order dated 04.10.2017, passed by learned District Commission, Panipat is well reasoned, based on facts, as per law and there is no need to interfere with it.  Hence, the First Appeal No.1613 of 2017 filed by the OP (The Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank) and First Appeal No.1005 of 2018 filed by complainant (Shri Tejvir Singh), both stand dismissed while upholding the order passed by the learned District Commission.

16.                 The statutory amount of Rs.1,650/- deposited at the time of filing of the First Appeal No.1613 of 2017 be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and due verification, as per rules.

17.                 The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1613 of 2017 and its certified copies be attached with appeal No.1005 of 2018.

18.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.

19.                Application(s), pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

20.                File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

Pronounced on 30^th May, 2023

 

                                                                                                            S.C Kaushik,

Member        

Addl. Bench-III