INDIAN RAILWAY FINANCE CORPORATIN LTD. - Complainant(s)
Versus
TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH CITIZENS (EAST INDIA) ASSOCIATION & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)
M/S. KHAITAN & CO.
02 Aug 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4501 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 14/10/2009 in Appeal No. 8/2001 of the State Commission West Bengal)
1. INDIAN RAILWAY FINANCE CORPORATIN LTD.UG Floor, East Lower, NBCC Place, Visham Pitamah Marg, Pragati Vihar Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH CITIZENS (EAST INDIA) ASSOCIATION & ANR.Bishop's House, 51,Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-7000712. THE INVESTOR EDUCATION LAND PRJOTECTION FUNDRoom No. 503, A Wing, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi- 110 001,and also having its subordinate officwe at Nizam Palaced, 3rd Floor, 2nd M.S.O., 234/4, A.J.C. Bose RoadKolkata-700 020
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
M/S. KHAITAN & CO.
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Aug 2010
ORDER
Despite amount of Rs.7,500/- being remitted and notices being sent by registered post to respondents, no one is present on their behalf. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 14.10.2009 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata dismissing application for restoration of appeal which was dismissed for default on 8.12.2008. Appeal was filed against the order of District Forum dated 12.6.2008 whereby petitioner/opposite party Corporation was directed to refund amount of Rs.2,02,000/- to the respondent/complainant Association. Copy of the application for restoration filed before the State Commission is at pages 19 to 27 of the paper book. It was alleged in the application that against the order of District Forum the petitioner filed appeal on 29.8.2008. Registry pointed out certain defects which were removed by the petitioner. Thereafter, for the first time, appeal was fixed for hearing on 27.11.2008. However, due to communication gap in legal department of the petitioner no one attended the hearing. On 8.12.2008 appeal was again listed for argument and was dismissed for default. -3- Dismissal of appeal was not initially known to the petitioner. It was further stated that on or about 20.7.2009, the petitioner received notice in execution proceedings initiated by the respondent Association. Immediately legal department of the petitioner caused enquiry and on 22.7.2009 the higher authorities of the petitioner granted approval to the legal department for appointing an Advocate to file application for restoration of appeal. On 30.7.2009 the legal department appointed Sri Ratnesh Rai, Advocate of M/s Khaitan & Co. Sri Rai asked the representative of the petitioner to come for conference on 12.8.2009 when after discussion it was decided that the counsel would cause a detailed search of the proceedings. Sri Rai on 12.8.2009 engaged Sri Neeraj Njunjhunwala for that purpose. On inspection it was revealed for the first time on 26.8.2009 that the appeal was dismissed on 8.12.2008. On 26.8.2009 Sri Rai applied for certified copy of order dated 8.12.2008. After obtaining the certified copy of the order, the junior counsel was briefed on 26th and 27th August, 2009 for drafting restoration application. Again a conference was held on 27.8.2009. On 1.9.2009, the junior counsel handed over the draft of the restoration application to Sri Rai, Advocate. Sri Rai finalised the draft on 1.9.2009 and sent it to the legal department of the petitioner. After approval the draft was returned to Sri Rai on 3.9.2009 -4- with instruction to file the application immediately. Thereafter on 4.9.2009 application was filed. Allegations made in the application are supported by the affidavit of G.M. (Bonds) of the petitioner. Having heard Sri Ranganadhan and also having considered the facts disclosed in application we are of the view that there is sufficient cause to restore the appeal and the State Commission erroneously passed the order dated 14.10.2009 declining to restore the appeal. Order of State Commission, thus, deserves to be set aside and case remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merit. Accordingly while allowing revision petition, aforesaid orders dated 8.12.2008 and 14.10.2009 are set aside and case is remanded to the State Commission for appeal being decided afresh on merit without being influenced of the order dated 12.3.2009 in F.A. No.2008/403 after giving opportunity to both the parties. Release of the principle amount alongwith interest deposited by the petitioner with this Commission pursuant to the order dated 5.4.2010 would -5- depend on the final outcome in appeal. Both the parties will appear before the State Commission for direction on 27.9.2010.
......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
