State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Anandrao Dyanu Dhere vs Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. on 10 February, 2010
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2009 Date of filing : 08/12/2009 IN MISC. APPL. NO. 02 OF 2008 Date of order : 10/02/2010 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE Shri Anandrao Dyanu Dhere Carrying business in the name & style of M/s.Visahl Eggs Suppliers At Joshi Building, Cholegaon, Thakurli (E), Dist. Thane-421 201. Appellant/org. complainant V/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. O/at Citi Tower, 2nd floor, 61, Dr.S.S. Rao Road, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. Respondent/org. O.P. Quorum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member Appearance : None for the appellant.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal has been filed by complainant against the order dated 03/10/2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Thane in M.A.No.02/2008 whereby the Forum below rejected delay condonation application filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, org. complainant has filed the present appeal.
The complainant has filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum Thane on 04/02/2008 along with delay condonation application for condoning delay of 680 days. O.P. has filed its say on delay condonation application on 18/03/2008 objecting for delay condonation application on the ground that delay is inordinate i.e. nearly two years and complainant has not explained the delay satisfactorily. After considering documents and affidavits and on hearing both the parties, Learned District Consumer Forum rejected the delay condonation application.
Appellant is absent when the matter was called out on 10/02/2010. We perused copy of order and documents placed on record.
Appellant had obtained loan from respondent for purchase of vehicle. Respondent granted loan of Rs.5,52,000/- repayable in 47 months with monthly installment of Rs.15,463/-. Due to non-payment of installments in time, O.P. seized the vehicle on 24/03/2004. Appellant has filed complaint on 04/02/2008 i.e. nearly after two years. Appellant/complainant has filed affidavit in support of delay condonation application. The reason for delay has been stated in Para 2 of affidavit which is reproduced as under :-
That the cause of action has arisen to file the above complaint on 24/03/2004, i.e. day when the Opp. Party seized the physical possession of the said vehicle from Ulhasnagar, and therefore I would have filed the complaint within two years from the date of cause of action i.e. on or before 24/03/2006. I say that immediately after seizure of the said vehicle, I tried to contact the concerned Officer of the Opp. Party herein, however the concerned officer of the Opp. Party on one or the other pretext kept me in dark and as a result I sued to attend practically every week to the office of the Opp. Party with a hope to get back my vehicle but the concern officer all through gave me false assurances that they will consider my request and return back my said vehicle but they never returned my vehicle nor refunded the amount till date. I am layman and studied upto and I believed the words of officers of the Opp. Party and hence there is considerable delay in filing the present complaint before this Honble Forum.
The complainant has stated in Para
2 that he would have filed complaint within two years from the date of cause of action and in the same Para however he has stated that he is a layman and studied upto This would go to show that complainant was aware that he should have filed complaint before the Forum below within two years from the date of cause of action and he has making contradictory statement that he is a layman. However, it is pertinent to note that ignorance of law is no excuse. The complainant has failed to give any satisfactory reasons for condoning the delay, under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act,1986, every day of delay has to be explained satisfactorily which complainant has failed to do so. Delay is inordinate. It is not explained satisfactorily and therefore, Forum below has rightly rejected delay condonation application. Therefore, we are finding that appeal is devoid of any substance. In the result, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is dismissed
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs.
(S.P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.