Axis Bank Ltd vs Jagdish Chander Kudesia

IN this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 9.4.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ''State Commission ''), vide which appeal of the appellant was dismissed in default.

BRIEF facts are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''the Act '') against the petitioner/opposite party, alleging that he had deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in the fixed deposit with the petitioner which matured on 9.5.2005. Till date, petitioner has not paid the maturity amount to the respondent nor it was renewed for further period. Petitioner filed its written statement denying the allegations made by the respondent, stating that fixed deposit in the name of respondent has been duly paid by it.

At the time of arguments before the District Forum, none appeared on behalf of petitioner. District Forum after hearing the respondent, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to respondent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum for the period of which interest has not been paid.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed in default due to the non- appearance of the petitioner. This is how the matter has reached before this Commission.

IT is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that matter was listed before the State Commission on 26.3.2012. The petitioner erroneously noted the date as 19.7.2012 instead of 9.4.2012 and as such there are sufficient grounds for restoration of the appeal. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent that, it is not that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed only due to non-appearance but it was dismissed also on the ground as the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the State Commission. Further, it will be clear that the petitioner has been delaying the matter and has no intention to comply with the order of the District Forum as before the District Forum also at the time of final arguments, neither petitioner nor its counsel appeared. Petitioner till date, has not placed on record the copy of order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the State Commission. Moreover, on 25.6.2012 when this petition came up for hearing before this Commission, following order was passed; "Heard. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to file copies of the relevant interim orders/proceedings of the State Commission leading to the order dated 09.04.2012 as well as photocopies alongwith typed copies of his own diary entries, within one week. List on 26.09.2012 in the category of ''Direction ''. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order or any subsequent proceedings shall remain stayed till the next date. Copy of order dasti."

IN spite of the undertaking given by learned counsel petitioner to file the relevant interim order/proceedings of the State Commission within a week. Petitioner has not complied with above order till date.

THUS , it appears that the petitioner by not filing the relevant interim order/proceedings of the State Commission, has got the operation of the impugned order stayed from this Commission. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent has placed on record certified copy of the order dated 13.9.2011 passed by the State Commission, which reads as under; "13.9.2011 1. Sri Dharmendra, counsel for the appellant. 2. Respondent present in person. 3. Heard on early hearing application filed by respondent. Allowed. 4. According to para 4(B) (page 2) of appeal FD No.055010400138581 was closed on 17.2.2005 on instruction of respondent and was credited in the new no. FDMIC055010400442527 dated 17.2.2005. The appellant will file copy of the instruction as alleged by the appellant given to him by respondent for closing the FDR and copy of the FDR and record wherein the said amount was credited and the reason and circumstances how the original FD 055010400138581 is then in possession of the respondent which has been placed before us for perusal. The appellant will also file an affidavit in support of his contentions supplying copy of these documents to respondent within fifteen days from today and thereafter respondent within fifteen days will file his affidavit to the effect that the amount of FDR no.55010400138581 has not come to his account as alleged by appellant in para 4(B) page 2 of his appeal, supplying copy to the counsel for the appellant. 5. Fixed 5.12.2011 for arguments as no early date possible. "

As per this order, petitioner had to file the documents and the affidavit, but till date it had not complied with the order of the State Commission. Moreover, petitioner has enjoying the ex parte stay obtained from this Commission by misleading this Commission.

Even otherwise, it is apparent from the record that the only intention of the petitioner is to delay and not comply with the orders passed by the District Forum as well as that of the State Commission and to harass the respondent. Under these circumstances, present revision petition, being without any legal basis, is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account ", within four weeks from today. In case the cost is not deposited within the prescribed period, petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. List for compliance on 9.11.2012.