PRAGATHI CHIT FUNDS LTD. vs MOHD. MUNTAZEER

THIS revision petition arises out of order passed by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum which had allowed the complaint.

BRIEF facts of this case are that the complainant was subscribing towards two chit fund schemes. It is the complainant''s case that even after receiving Rs. 50,000/- under both the chits, the petitioner/opposite party did not adjust Rs. 25,000/- in the second chit. Thus, alleging deficiency, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum who after hearing both the parties, while holding the petitioner deficient in rendering services, directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 56,115/- to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. An appeal filed by the petitions, was dismissed on merits as well as barred by limitation of 145 days, hence this petition before us. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission erred in not considering the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. He also drew our attention to an order of the Civil Court between the parties and the pleas taken by the parties before that Forum. State Commission should not have dismissed the appeal on limitation.

We have seen the material on record. It is worthy to note that no counter was filed by the petitioner either before the District Forum or before the State Commission. We have seen the grounds explaining the delay in filing the appeal. We agree with the State Commission that the delay has not been adequately explained. In our view, the State Commission was justified in not condoning the delay. We also see that the appeal has been dismissed both as barred by limitation and on merits. There is concurrent finding of two lower Forums based on facts of the case. No point of law has been raised before us at this stage to call for our interference in the well reasoned order of both the Forums below.

WE see that since the order of the Civil Court between the parties was not brought to the notice of the District Forum as no counter was filed by the petitioner - opposite party, then, obviously, District Forum could not take cognizance of the fact which was not brought before it. Before the State Commission the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation and on merits of the case, it is important to note that again no counter was filed by the petitioner/appellant before the State Commission. The petitioner in such circumstances, may pursue his relief vis-a-vis order of Civil Court, in appropriate Forum. The orders in complaint filed by the complainant have been examined on its merits by two Forums below and have found the petitioner deficient in rendering service. After examining the issue raised before us, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.