U P GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE CORPORATION vs JAMUNA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

CASE called out. None responds for the appellant U. P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation. Mr. A. K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent Jamuna Prasad Srivastava is present. He has made his submissions. Since it is an old appeal, we proceed to decide the appeal on merit.

THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2. 7. 2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gorakhpur, whereby the respondent''s complaint for recovery of Rs. 43,882. 00 along with interest was allowed with a default clause to the effect that if payment was not made within two months, the appellant shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount @ Rs. 12% p. a. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are very simple and the same may be recapitulated as below:

Mr. Jamuna Prasad Srivastava, the respondent booked with U. P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation, Gorakhpur Depot two Bajaj Chetak Scooters on 15. 12. 1997 and paid for each booking total of which accumulated as Rs. 43,882. 00. Four receipts were issued to the complainant by the Manager of the said Depot. The two receipts for Rs. 21,691. 00 each indicated the receipt of the price of the two scooters while the remaining two receipts for Rs. 250. 00 each was in lieu of requisite fees/commission of the Welfare Corporation. The complainant desired one scooter for himself and the other was proposed to be purchased for delivery as a gift to his niece on the occasion of her wedding. The complainant kept on waiting for delivery of the two scooters but his expectations proved to be futile. When the complainant contacted the Manager of the Nigam, he had to draw a flak with the Manager''s refusal to refund his money. Even there was no communication from the Welfare Corporation. It was under these compelling circumstances that the complainant filed the complaint,

A perusal of para 9 of the memorandum of appeal would reveal that the allegations regarding the deposit of Rs. 43,882. 00 with the Welfare Nigam on 15. 12. 1997 is admitted. A lame suspicion appears to have been raised by the Welfare Corporation and as recited it was to the effect that out of the two Bajaj scooters, one was meant for resale or some other unwanted purpose - may be a commercial purpose as mentioned in para 10. However, there is nothing on record to support the said suspicion or apprehension. If there was any apprehension in the mind of the Manager or any other official of the Welfare Corporation of the concerned Depot, a notice should have been served upon the complainant asking him to explain as to for what purpose the other scooter had been booked. No such step was taken by the Corporation officials. Moreover the apprehension or the doubt was totally unfounded as in the booking application the complainant had clearly stipulated that he was applying for purchase/booking of two Bajaj scooters-one for his own use and the other for his niece to be gifted on her wedding. Thus, the facts at the most could be enquired by the Manager but since the bona fide intention to provide the delivery of the two scooters was lacking on the part of the officials, probing of the matter was not taken recourse to. Besides above, it appears from the facts detailed in para 8 of the memorandum of appeal that the then Manager of the Depot was placed under suspension for his negligence, mismanagement and misappreciation of funds. May be the similar kind of mischief on the part of the said Manager, might have resulted in non-delivery of the scooters to the complainant.

HOWEVER, we do not consider it worthy of credit to attribute to his negligence resulting in ex parte order. In a Depot there is a group of personnel and any one of them could be asked to pursue the proceedings of the complaint. The appellants'' Counsel appeared before the District Consumer Forum not once but twice and his request for grant of time to file written statement was acceded to but in spite of this liberal and lenient attitude of the District Consumer Forum below, the Welfare Corporation did not prefer to file any written statement/objections. As a consequence, the District Consumer Forum''s order directing for the proceedings to be drawn ex parte was perfectly justified. The issuance of four receipts two in support of fees chargeable by the Welfare Corporation and the other two realising the price of the scooters which were duly proved from record are indicative of the proof that the aforesaid money of Rs. 43,882. 00 was paid to the Gorakhpur Depot of U. P. Government Employees Welfare Corporation and as said above the fact regarding receipt of the said amount has been clearly admitted in the appeal. The scooters have not been delivered as yet. No adequate explanation for non-delivery of the scooters except that of the mismanagement attributed to the Manager and other employees working in the Gorakhpur Depot of the Corporation, has been offered to justify inordinate delay in effecting delivery of the scooters. The payments of the complainant''s money was not made by the Nigam within two months from the date of the judgment, thus, incurring the consequential liability of interest @ Rs. 12% p. a. The rate of interest is just and reasonable and do not call for any interference. In the instant circumstances as disclosed above, the impugned judgment and order dated 22. 1. 2003, whereby the recall application was dismissed by the Forum below is perfectly just and legal. The complaint of the respondent was decided on merit, not ex parte. The details of the complainant''s case including affidavit and documentary evidence relied upon by him were discussed in the judgment. It is also noteworthy to mention that the appellant was served with a registered notice during pendency of the complaint but it was not received back in time, as a consequence, a presumption of service was drawn against the appellant who moved an application on 4. 10. 2001 praying for time to file objections but no written statement was filed. In this way the appellant availed of two opportunities to file the written statement-one after receipt of the registered notice and the other after the application dated 4. 12. 2001 having been allowed. In such circumstances there would have been indeed, no justification for the Forum below to recall the judgment which was pronounced on merit of the case.

THE net result is that the appeal is totally devoid of merit and it, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.