LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD vs G Mallesham S/O Late Anjaiah

THE complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint before the concerned District Forum, seeking refund of the documents, particularly, original sale -deed of his immoveable property and linked documents, which he had deposited with the petitioner company while taking housing loan from it. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company vide reply dated 14.10.2008.

VIDE order dated 27.02.2009, the District Forum directed the petitioner to return the original documents alongwith linked documents to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - to him as compensation and Rs. 1,000/ - towards cost of litigation.

THE aforesaid order passed by the District Forum on 27.02.2009 was not challenged by the petitioner company and therefore, it became final. Since the original sale -deed of the immovable property was not returned to the complainant, he initiated proceedings under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner company. Vide order dated 10.11.2009, the District Forum dismissed the said petition filed under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that the complainant had failed to establish the deposit of the sale -deed with the opposite party.

BEING aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide order dated 09.0 -2.2012, the State Commission allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal in the light of the observation made by the said Commission. The aforesaid order dated 09.02.2012 passed by the State Commission was not challenged by the petitioner company.

VIDE its order dated 03.10.2012, the District Forum again dismissed the petition filed by the complainant under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with cost assessed at Rs. 2,000/ -. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant again approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.04.2013, the State Commission again allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and remitted the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal of the petition under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE aforesaid order passed by the State Commission was challenged by the petitioner before this Commission by filing a revision petition. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.07.2012. This order dated 22.04.2013 passed by the State Commission thus became final.

THE matter is now pending before the District Forum, for passing a fresh order on the execution application of the complainant in terms of the order dated 22.04.2013 of the State Commission. The petitioner is now seeking to challenge the order dated 10.10.2014 of the State Commission whereby the said Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 27.02.2009 passed in the complaint. Since there was a delay in filing the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner company had also filed an application seeking condonation of delay as many as 1786 days in challenging the order dated 27.02.2009 of the District Forum. The State Commission found no justification for condoning the said abnormal delay and consequently, dismissed the appeal. Since there is delay in filing this revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed alongwith the revision petition.

THE main question which arises for our consideration in this petition is as to whether there was any justification shown by the petitioner company for condonation of delay of about 5 years (1786 days) in challenging the order of the District Forum dated 27.02.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner company was all along aware of the order passed by the District Forum on 27.02.2009. The petitioner company is a large company having its own legal department and a number of Advocates representing it before several courts and forums. The petitioner company was duly represented by a counsel in the complaint which came to be allowed on 27.02.2009. The petitioner, therefore, had ample opportunity to challenge the said order. Obviously, the petitioner had decided to accept the said order. In fact, even when the petitioner company challenged the order passed by the State Commission on 22.04.2013 it did not feel any necessity of challenging the order passed by the District Forum on 27.02.2009, before the concerned State Commission, as would be evident from the fact that the appeal before the State Commission came to be filed in the year 2014.

EVEN otherwise, I fail to appreciate, how the petitioner company can now claim that the original sale -deed of the property is not with it, when while returning some of the documents on 08.02.2007, it allowed the complainant to make a specific endorsement that the document in his favour had not been returned. Obviously, this was a reference to the sale -deed in favour of the complainant. The said endorsement clearly shows that the sale -deed had been deposited with the petitioner. From whatever angle I take, I find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed with cost which is assessed to Rs. 10,000/ -. The cost be deposited with this Commission by way of demand draft in favour of ''Consumer Legal Aid Account NCDRC''.