State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd vs Rajeev Narula on 9 November, 2010
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 09.11.2010 First Appeal No.2009/508 (Arising out of Order dated 21.04.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.843/2006) M/S. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. . Appellant/Opposite Party 2nd Floor, Express Building through Ms. Suchita Sharma, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, advocate. New Delhi. Versus Sh. Rajeev Narula . Respondent /Complainant. B-5, Flat No.4434, through Ms. Sumati Anand, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. advocate. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President -ORAL
1. The appellant (OP) has filed an appeal alongwith which he has filed an application for condonation of delay.
2. In this application for condonation of delay, counsel for both the parties have been heard.
3. It will be seen that there is admittedly 60 days delay in filing the appeal. The reason given is thatthe counsel of the appellant Sh. Ajandra Sisodia who was handling the case became unwell and there was as such delay in filing the appeal. There is an affidavit of the concerned counsel about his illness, but there is no medical certificate. The diseases referred to, which the learned counsel is said to have suffered are spondilitis and High Blood Pressure. There are no diseases which normally render a person wholly immobile, and in any case, even if that was so, the learned counsel could have asked another person to file an appeal on his behalf, and it will also be see that there is a vakalatnama of two other counsels from the side of the applicant whose names also appear, on the application for condonation of delay. The learned counsel who became ill could atleast have informed his client about his illness and about his inability to file an appeal and the client could have thereafter filed an appeal with the add of two other counsels who were already representing him, but this was not done, and the reason given for the condonation of delay cannot therefore be considered sufficient.
4. The applicant himself is likely to have been aware of the illness of his counsel because a client is expected to keep himself abreast of the development in the case, and he could himself have filed the appeal through other lawyers. We are therefore of the view that the condonation application does not deserve to be allowed, and is accordingly dismissed.
5. FDR/Bank Guarantee, if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant subject to complete of formalities.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 09th day of November 2010 (Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri