National Consumer Disputes Redressal
A.V. Sreedharan vs M.V. Narayanan on 17 October, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI MA 739 OF 2012 (FOR RESTORATION) IN REVISION PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 31.08.2011 in Appeal No. 573/2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala) A.V. Sreedharan S/o Krishnan, Ankakkalari (Dharkas) P.O. Puthariyadukkam, Hosdurg Taluk Kasaragod, Kerala .... Petitioner Versus M.V. Narayanan S/o Late Kunhambu P.O. Bengalam, Madikal Village Hosdurg, Kasaragod, Kerala . Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Advocate Pronounced on 17.10.2012 ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. There is delay of 80 days in filing this revision petition. The delay has been explained in Para 4 of the application, moved for condonation of delay which is reproduced as follows:-
4. The impugned order was passed on 31.08.2011. After the passing of the impugned order, due to a wrong legal advice, the petitioner approached the Honble High Court of Kerala challenging the order of the State Commission. The same got dismissed as withdrawn dated 15.02.2012 without prejudice to approach the National Commission with a revision. A true copy of the order in W.P. (C ) No. 3772 of 2012 dated 15.02.2012 is annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure P/1.
2. In the case of Thai Airways International Public Company Ltd Vs. Gargi Basak, 2008 1 CPJ 134 NC, it was stated that the appellant pursuing the matter bonafide in Calcutta High Court and time spent in disposing of Writ Petition should be excluded. This court rejected this plea and it was held that one does not have to go to the High Court to be told that appeal lies against the impugned order of the State Commission to the National Commission.
It is also clear that in the instant case that the writ was not pursued deliberately, which was dismissed for default. There is no evidence that the petitioner had pursued this case diligently. This a delaying tactic. Consequently, the appeal is barred by time. This view finds support from the following authority.
3. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been held that it is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
4. The case has to be dismissed, being barred by time.
5. Now, we turn to the merits of this case. OP/petitioner, A.V.Sreedharan, was a close friend of complainant, M.V. Narayanan. On 05.06.2004, the OP convinced the complainant that he was starting Two Chit Funds with Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- sala each. The complainant paid him monthly subscription of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/-, respectively, for the said two Chits. The said amounts were collected from 10.06.2004 to 10.10.2004. Thereafter the complainant went to Kuwait and used to remit the subscription in the account of OP in North Malabar Gramin Bank, Nileshwar Branch, till 20.01.2001. The complainant paid the OP a total sum of Rs.1,88,000/- as monthly subscription.
Besides that, he also paid the OP a sum of Rs.30,000/-. OP also informed the complainant that one of the Chittis (Chit Fund) will be over by December, 2006 and the other in May, 2007. Thereafter the wife of the complainant approached the OP to pay back the amount but the needful was not done. Ultimately, the complaint was filed before the District Forum.
6. The District Forum directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 20.01.2007 with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
7. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and is posted as a Peon in a Bank. It was contended that as a matter of fact, the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs from him on 16.06.2004. The OP was informed that he would return the amount within two months. Again, the complainant is having Chittis run by Vairajathan Eashwaran Kshethram, Vainingat for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1.5 lakhs. He had promised that he would get the Chitties and repay the amount. Firstly, he refused to pay the amount and due to intervention of friends, only a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid so far. He contended that on the contrary, the complainant owes him a sum of Rs.27,000/-.
9. We find no force in these arguments. The orders of the fora below clearly go to show that the complainant has produced Ex.A1 to A-23, receipts, with respect to the amounts remitted to the account of the OP from abroad. This was also not denied that the OP was a peon in the District Co-operative Bank, Kasaragod. He was dismissed from service for misappropriation of funds for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. He was convicted in the criminal case and thereafter was dismissed from the service. The matter is still pending before the Honble High Court. The but and ben stance set up by the petitioner that he is a poor man and yet gave Rs.1.5 lakhs to the complainant throws a cloud of doubt over his bonafides.
10. The case of the petitioner is supported by the documentary evidence produced at Ex.A1 to A-23. The OPs have failed to prove any evidence which may go to show that he had lent a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs to the complainant and in absence of any such evidence, the above said story does not just stack up.
11. Ex. A-24 is a letter sent by OP to the complainant by hand, through one of the friends of the complainant, working in Kuwait. The OP admitted before the District Forum that the said letter was written by him. In Ex.A-24, OP clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentions that One of your chitti will end by December, 2006. Likewise the Rs.2000 kuri also will end by 2007 May.
12. This document which is of utmost importance falsifies all the pleas raised by the respondent. Revision petition filed by the Petitioner is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
....
J. (J.M. MALIK) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER dd/24