H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

--



FIRST APPEAL NO.125/2008

DATE OF DECISION: 13.7.2009.



In the matter of:



1. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Limited, Ner Chowk, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh through its Branch Manager.



2. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial service Limited, Worli, Mumbai, through its Managing Director.

… … Appellants.



Versus



Hira Lal Son of Shri Dhabe Ram, Resident of Village Bhagwana, P.O. Choktha, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.



… … Respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellants: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: None.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Mandi, in Complaint Case No.276/2007. Appeal was time barred, as such for getting the respondent served in the application for condonation of delay, dasti notice was given to the appellants as per order dated 27.8.2008 and 3.11.2008. Respondent was duly served on this application, he however did not appear. After hearing learned Counsel for the appellants, delay in the filing the appeal was condoned and application in this behalf being M.A. No.348/2008 was allowed. Thereafter Appeal No.125/2008 was admitted and Dasti notice was ordered to be collected for service of the respondent for 4.6.2009. Dasti notice was collected on behalf of the appellants by its learned Counsel. On 4.6.2009, when Dasti notice for getting the respondent served was not returned on behalf of the appellants, following order was passed:-



“4.6.2009 Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate for the

appellants.



On 9.4.2009 Dasti notice was ordered to be collected by the appellants during the course of next week. When the case was listed today Dasti notice was not returned either served or un-served. This was the minimum that was required of the appellants. At this stage Mr. Rahul Mahajan learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had delivered the Dasti notice at the local office of the appellants at Shimla, and was informed that it was sent by the Shimla office to its Mandi office for getting the needful done and for its return well before the date fixed, but it has not been returned till date.



He prayed for issuing fresh Dasti notice. Prayer allowed. Let fresh Dasti notice be collected by the appellants/their learned counsel during the course of this week for getting the respondent served. In case respondent is not available at the given address, then the notice alongwith copy of the grounds of appeal shall be posted by someone on behalf of the appellants who shall return the notice alongwith his affidavit. Be listed on 13.7.2009”





2. When this appeal came up for consideration, Mr. Mahajan submitted that after again collecting Dasti notices those were delivered at the Shimla office of the appellants. When he contacted the local Law Officer of the appellants at Shimla, he was informed on telephone that though respondent has been served, however Dasti notice had not been returned by the Mandi branch of the appellants. It appears that after obtaining ex-parte stay order, appellants are not at all concerned much less bothered to return the Dasti notice given to them for getting the respondent served. Mr. Mahajan learned Counsel for the appellants stated at the bar that he did whatever was possible within his power and despite his best efforts, appellants have not cared to return the Dasti notice after service of the respondent.



3. In the absence of the proof of service, the matter cannot proceed and the respondent can also not be set ex-parte. Appellants cannot and in fact should not expect that we will keep on adjourning the case subject to their convenience as well as suitability. As prudent litigants it is expected of them to ensure that they comply with the orders passed by the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It seems that they are taking things for granted. This shows that they are not at all interested in prosecuting this appeal because of their aforesaid acts of omission, commission as well as remissness. In these circumstances, we have no option but for dismissing this appeal for non compliance with our orders. Ordered accordingly and as a result of it, while dismissing this appeal, order passed by District Forum below in Complaint No.276/2007 on 25.3.2008 is upheld.



All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.



Learned Counsel for the appellants have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary in accordance with the rules and the office is directed to send it in the like manner to the respondent. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.



Shimla,

July 13, 2009.



( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President





( Saroj Sharma )

Member





/BS/ ( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member