State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Shri Keshav Narayan Kotain on 2 December, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal No.183/2008 Date of Filing: 06/02/2008 @ M.A. No. 297 & 298/208 Complaint No. 208/2007 District Consumer Forum: Nasik Date of Order: 02/12/2008 ICICI Bank Ltd. Appellant Through Manager, (Org.Oppoiste Party) Mr.Vijay Krishnan Utility building, Sharanpur Road, Opposite Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan Nasik. V/s Shri Keshav Narayan Kotain, Reespondent Res.: Hotel Gurukrupa, State Bank Stop, Nasik Corum : Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri S.P.Lale, Honble Member.
Present:
Adv.A.S.Vidyarthi for appellant.
Adv.Lohkare for the respondent .
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The Forum below allowed the consumer complaint by impugned judgment dt.21/11/2007 passed in consumer complaint no. 208/2007 and directed ICICI bank to pay an amount of Rs. 2,24,225/- to the complainant with Rs.3,000/- as costs and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and also pay interest @ 9% p.a. As such, the bank has filed this appeal.
We heard Adv. A.S.Vidyarthi for appellant and Adv.Lohkare for the respondent.
Ld.Counsel Shri Vidyarhti for the appellant pointed out that in the District Forum, when the complaint was pending for some or other reason, the bank could not contest the matter and complaint has been decided exparte. Counsel for the appellant took us through the documents placed along with the appeal memo and pointed out that 3-4 times respondent had committed defaults in paying EMI. His cheques had bounced four times and he had committed defaults in paying EMI and therefore, the bank seized the vehicle and sold it in public auction. But since the bank could not file written statement the order came to be passed against it. Hence, Adv.Vidyarthi prayed that the appeal should be allowed and complaint should be remanded back to the District Forum permitting the appellant to file written statement and contest the matter.
We are finding that there is delay of 46 days in filing the appeal. For seeking condonation of delay, the appellant has filed M. A. no. 297/2008 . For condonation of delay an affidavit is filed in support thereof. Just and sufficient cause has been made out. Hence, we are inclined to condone the delay subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent and we condone the delay accordingly.
The appeal deserves to be allowed for giving fair opportunity to the appellant to contest the matter. As such, we pass following order:-
:-ORDER-:.
1. M.A. no. 297/2008 for condonation of delay is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.
2. Appeal is allowed.
3. Impugned order passed by the Forum below is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint is remitted back to the Forum below for permitting the appellant Bank to file its written statement and contest the matter.
4. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Forum below on 16/02/2009.
The Forum below is directed to give priority to this complaint and dispose of this complaint within 90 days strictly from date of receipt of the order.
5. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the respondent for getting second inning to contest the matter. The amount deposited by the appellant while filing the appeal be given directly to the respondent towards part satisfaction of this order.
6. M.A. Nos. 297 & 298/2008 stands disposed of.
6. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
7. Declared in open court.
8. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Nbh