Pramod S/O Chandrakant Mohole vs Manager, Diwan Housing Finance Corpn Ltd

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission ) in Misc. Application No. 63 of 2012 in Appeal No. 84/2012 Pramod Chandrakant Mohole Vs. The Manager, Diwan Housing Finance Corpn. Ltd. by which, while dismissing application for condonation of delay, appeal was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner, who obtained housing policy from OP No. 1/Respondent No. 1 could not make payment of some instalments in time and OP No. 1 illegally surrendered Life Insurance Policy, which was given to him for loan guarantee and adjusted that amount in loan account. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OPs resisted complaint and learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission along with application for condonation of delay against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay inspite of reasonable explanation for delay; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to State Commission for disposal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PETITIONER moved application before State Commission in which he submitted that he came to know about order of District Forum dismissing complaint on 13.1.2012 from his friend and he immediately obtained copy of the impugned order and filed appeal. He has further submitted that he engaged Advocate Mr. Gatane and never engaged Advocate Mr. Tamboli and Mr. Gatane never apprised him about disposal of complaint. He further submitted that on 29.11.2011 after hot dialogues EMI of Rs.25,000/ - was deposited by him with respondent and even on that date there was no intimation about dismissal of complaint. It was further submitted that his mother was hospitalized from 2.12.2011; hence, delay in filing appeal may be condoned.

PERUSAL of order of District Forum reveals that Mr. S.S. Gatne, Advocate appeared for the complainant before District Forum and complainant has specifically stated on affidavit that he never engaged Mr. Tamboli and Mr. Gatne never apprised him about order and looking into the medical treatment of petitioner s mother and hospitalisation from 2.12.2012 to 28.12.2011, learned State Commission ought to have taken sympathetic view and should have condoned delay subject to cost.

LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has not countered the fact that petitioner s mother was not admitted in the hospital and petitioner ever engaged Advocate Tamboli. In such circumstances, revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 21.6.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Misc. Application No. 63 of 2012 in Appeal No. 84/2012 Pramod Chandrakant Mohole Vs. The Manager, Diwan Housing Finance Corpn. Ltd. is set aside and application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/ - as cost to Respondent No. 1 and 2 and Rs.5,000/ - to Respondent No. 3 and delay in filing appeal stands condoned. Learned State Commission is directed to decide appeal on merits.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the State Commission on 8.12.2014 and petitioner is directed to make payment of cost by 8.12.2014, failing which, revision petition shall stand dismissed.