State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Peacock Media Ltd., vs Barclays Bank Plc on 16 August, 2013
Daily Order
BEFORE THE
HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint
Case No. CC/12/73 alongwith Miscellaneous Application No.MA/12/147
(Delay)
M/S. PEACOCK MEDIA LTD.,
THRUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. SANTOSH SINGH,
COMPANY SECRETARY
24B, APPOLLO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
OFF MAHAKALI
CAVES ROAD
ANDHERI EAST
MUMBAI - 400093
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
BARCLAYS BANK PLC
801/808, CEEJAY HOUSE
SHIVSAGAR ESTATE
DR. ANNIE BASANT ROAD
WORLI, MUMBAI - 400018
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MRS. Usha S.Thakare PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member HON'ABLE MR. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Adv. Uday B. Wavikar for the Applicant/Complainant Adv. Hiren Mehta for the Non-Applicant/Opponent ORDER Per - Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member Heard Adv. Uday B. Wavikar on behalf of the Applicant/Complainant and Adv. Hiren Mehta for the Non-Applicant/Opponent respectively on the application for condonation of delay. We have also perused the delay condonation application and the written reply filed by the Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Opponent.
[2] Admittedly, the Applicant/Complainant has prayed for condoning the delay of 365 days in filing the complaint. In paragraph (20) of the delay condonation application the Applicant/Complainant merely stated that the delay is not intentional or deliberate but because of unavoidable circumstances, the delay occurred.
In the entire delay condonation application there is no explanation about the unavoidable circumstances.
[3] As against this Advocate for the Non-Applicant/Opponent stated that the Applicant/Complainant has failed to point out a sufficient cause in filing the complaint within the time limit prescribed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Merely stating that the Complainant could not file a complaint within time because of unavoidable circumstances will not be a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 365 days. Further, the Learned Advocate had pointed out that the Applicant/Complainant himself agreed to the pre-closure charges of `30,00,000/- and instructed the Non-Applicant/Opponent to debit the same from its account as per the agreement executed between the parties.
[4] The Learned Counsel for the Applicant/Complainant has produced catena of judgments in support of his contention. We have gone through the authorities produced by the Learned Counsel.
However, the authorities/citations produced by the Learned Counsel are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
[5] The Applicant/Complainant miserably failed to show a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 365 days. Hence, we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application No.147 of 2012 praying the condonation of delay. Consequently, Consumer Complaint No.73 of 2012 does not survive for consideration.
Pronounced on 16th August, 2013 [HON'ABLE MRS.
Usha S.Thakare] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'ABLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member [HON'ABLE MR.
Narendra Kawde] MEMBER kvs