State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Suraj Mandal on 12 March, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 1 2-3-2012 Case No. FA-10/677 (Arising from the order dated 17.1.08 passed in Complaint Case No. 426/05 by the District Consumer Forum, New Delhi). STATE BANK OF INDIA - APPELLANT Personal Banking Branch Main Branch (earlier Parliament House Sub-office) 11, Sansad marg, New Delhi. Through Branch Manager Versus SHRI SURAJ MANDAL S/O Sh. Mangal Mandal, R/o B-26, Shalimar Apartments, Masjid Moth, New Delhi Previous address 14-E, Firoz Shah Road, New Delhi. - RESPONDENT 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? SALMA NOOR (ORAL) ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.1.08 passed by the District Consumer Forum, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.426/05 wherein the District Forum directed the Appellant Respondent to pay Rs. 4,43,651/- to the complainant, the amount wrongly withdrawn from the account of the complainant, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency of service and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act for condonation of delay has also been filed.
3. We have heard Ms. Gauri Bhandari, Counsel for the Appellant and Sh. N. Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent on delay condonation application at the admission stage.
4. According to the appellant himself, there is a delay of 920 days in filing the appeal. The only explanation for such a long delay is given by the Appellant Counsel is that the copy of the impugned order was not received by the Appellant. Appellants contention is that he inquired from the Forum several times about the passing of the order but was informed each time that the matter had been reserved for orders. The appellant got to know about the passing of the order for the first time on 19.7.2010 when a copy of the same was received from the representative of the Respondent for executing the orders. On receipt of the copy of the order, the Appellant was taken by surprise as the date of the order was 17.1.2008. The Appellant immediately processed the file for appropriate action, that is the reason that the appeal was not filed within prescribed limit.
5. We are not at all agreed with the above contention of the applicant/appellant. We have requisitioned the original record of the District Forum and found that it was a very well contested case by the parties and order was reserved in presence of both the parties. It is also evident that the certified copy of the impugned order was dispatched to the parties on 21.01.08, hence the appellant can not take this plea that he was not aware of the passing of the order. If at all he had not received the copy of the impugned order he should have moved an application before the District Forum for getting the certified copy of the impugned order.
6. In view of the above, it has been proved that the appellant was aware of the order and now he cannot take the plea that he has come to know about the order only after he received the execution notice.
It is also proved that he was appeared before the District Forum when the final arguments were heard and the order was reserved. So the defence taken by the appellant is very nave and does not appeal to the reason. The appellant has failed to given us any convincing reason to condone the delay of 920 days.
7. Thus, in our view the appellant has failed to substantiate his case for presenting the appeal after such a long delay and for that reason application for condonation of delay deserve to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
8. Since the application for condonation of delay is rejected, the appeal also stands dismissed as barred by limitation at the admission stage.
9. The FDR, if any, be returned to the appellant as per rules.
10. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
11. Announced on 12th March 2012.
(JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI) PRESIDENT (SALMA NOOR) MEMBER rn