State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shrikant Gopalrao Prabhune vs Hdfc Bank Ltd on 7 December, 2011
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH
AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR,
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES,
NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal
No. A/09/690
(Arisen out
of Order Dated 26/06/2009 in Misc. Case No. MA/08/126 of District Forum, Nagpur)
Shrikant
Gopalrao Prabhune,
Presently
R/o - 5, S.E. Railway Colony,
(1st
lay out), Rana Pratap Nagar, Nagpur,
Through
Power of Attorney
Shri
Avinash Vinayak Prabhune, ...... for the Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Brach Manager,
HDFC
Bank Ltd., Shankar Nagar
Road,
Nagpur- 440 010.
2. Brach Manager,
HDFC
Bank Ltd., Milestone, Ramdaspeth,
Wardha Road, Nagpur- 440 010.
3. Brach Manager,
HDFC
Bank Ltd., Loan Against Securities
Dept. Trade
World Building, A wing,
1st
Floor, Kamala Mills Comound,
S.B.
Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400
013. ...... for the Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT:
Mr. Avinash Prabhune, power of attorney holder
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. Ravi Pal
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 07/12/2011) PER SHRI S.M. SHEMBOLE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This appeal is an exception to the order dated 26/06/2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Application No. MA//126/2008.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that.
Complainant/appellant had filed Consumer Complaint No.169/2008 against the non-applicants/respondents. The Consumer Complaint came to be partly allowed directing the respondents/opponents to pay monthly instalment of loan from August 2007 and further respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to complainant/appellant towards physical and mental torture and also Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of proceedings. It was directed to comply with the order within 30 days etc.
3. According to appellant, the respondents avoided to comply with the order for 305 days. After such delay he has complied with the order. Thereafter under section 27(1) Consumer Protection Act the complainant filed the MA Application No. 126/2008 and requested the Forum to take penal action against the respondent.
4. On hearing both the sides, the District Consumer Forum held that the respondent has already complied with the order, however, as there was delay for the compliance, an amount of Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings was awarded. However, The District Consumer Forum declined any penal action against the respondent.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that order the complainant has filed the appeal.
6. We heard Mr.Avinash Prabhune, who is the power of attorney holder of the appellant and Adv. Mr. Ravi Pal for the respondent before admission and perused the copy of impugned judgment & order passed in Execution Application, so also the copy of complaint and copy of judgment and order dated 17/06/2008 passed in the original complaint No. 169/2008.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Avinash Prabhune, power of attorney holder of appellant that the respondent has failed & omitted to comply the order for 305 days and therefore, as per provision of Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, the respondent is liable for penal action. But the District Consumer Forum has neglected this provision and passed an impugned order, etc.
8. It is denied by Mr. Pal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and submitted that though there was delay in compliance of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, the respondent has not omitted or failed to comply the order so as to take penal action as contemplated under section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. He has submitted to dismiss the appeal.
9. At the outset we may point out that as per averments of the appellant only, the respondent has already complied with the order though there was a delay of 305 days. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has failed and omitted to comply with the order. Section 27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act does not reflect the word "delay" which contemplates that on failure of compliance of impugned order is liable for penal action.
10 Therefore, we are unable to accept arguments advanced by the power of attorney holder of appellant.
11. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
12 In the result the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is summarily dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated- 07/12/2011 [ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER ay