Haryana

StateCommission

A/509/2017

MANOJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.S.SINGHAL - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.CHAHAR

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.509 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 25.04.2017

                                                          Date of order: 14.03.2023

 

Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.Shadi Lal Virmani, R/o Ganeri WaliGali Killa Road Bazar, Rohtak.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. P.S.Singhal.
2. Smt. Bimla W/o Sh.P.S.Singhal
3. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh.P.S.Singhal

All residents of H.No.754/20, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.

4. All India Bank Employees Co. Op. Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.) Rohtak through its Administrator/Incharge (Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society) office in front of State Bank of India, Rohtak.
5. V.C. Sindhwani the then Secretary Al India Bank employees Co. Op. Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.) Rohtak R/o H.No. 613/30, Koyal complex Amargarh, Kithal (Haryana).
6. Administrator/Incharge Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, office in front of State Bank of India, Rohtak.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Satyawan Ahlawat,Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                   None for the respondent No.4.

                   Mr.Rujhan Dhawan,  Advocate for respondent No. 5.

                   None for respondent No.6.

 

First Appeal No.1263 of 2018

Date of institution:19.11.2018

Date of order: 14.03.2023

 

V.C. SindhwaniS/o Sh.RamLubhayaSindhwani, presently, R/o H.No. 1086/15, Model Town, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal, Haryana

…..Appellant

Versus

1. P.S.Singhal.
2. Smt. Bimla W/o Sh.P.S.Singhal
3. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh.P.S.Singhal

All residents of H.No.754/20, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.

4.  All India Bank Employees Co. Op. Urban (S.E.) Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. (Regd.) Rohtak through its Administrator/Incharge (Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society) office in front of State Bank of India, Rohtak.
5. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh.Shadi Lal Virmani, R/o Ganeri WaliGali Killa Road Bazar, Rohtak.
6. Administrator/Incharge Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, office in front of State Bank of India, Rohtak, Haryana.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Rujhan Dhawan, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 to 3 and 5.

                   None for respondent No.4 and 6.

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.509 of 2017 and F.A. No.1263 of 2018will be disposed of as both the appeals have been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Commission).

2.      There is a delay of 574 days in filing the appeal bearing No.1263 of 2018.  Appellant has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short “Act”)  for condonation of delay of  574 days wherein,  it was alleged that the appellant has been undergoing poor health on account of multiple rounds of civil and criminal litigation. FIR No.58 dated 23.03.2007 was registered against the present appellant and his family personally even through he was just an office bearer of the said society.  All the accused including  the  present appellant were acquitted of all the charges on 14.05.2014 in the said FIR. It was further alleged that due to all these false, frivolous and malicious cases including consumer, civil and criminal instituted against the present appellant  and his family, the appellant herein slipped into severe depression and remained bed ridden for long and due to the same the appellant was not able to pursue the present case. Owing to his poor mental health conditions, appellant was even not aware about the final order passed by the learned District forum. He came to know about the impugned order when he received notice dated 19.07.2019 issued by this Commission for appearing personally or through counsel on 21.09.2018.   The local counsel  did not communicate the present appellant about the fate of the case. The delay in filing the present appeal was neither intentional nor wilful but only due to the reason mentioned above.  Thus, delay of 574 days in filing of the present appeal bearing No.1263 of 2018 be condoned.

3.         Arguments Heard. File perused.

4.         Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that as per facts mentioned above, it is clear that delay in filing appeal was not intentional.    Further he argued that the appellant has been undergoing poor health on account of multiple rounds of civil and criminal litigation. FIR No.58 dated 23.03.2007 was registered against present appellant and his family personally even through he was just an office bearer of the said society.  All the accused including  thepresent appellant were acquitted of all the charges on 14.05.2014 in the said FIR. It was further alleged that due to all these false, frivolous and malicious cases including consumer, civil and criminal instituted against the present appellant  and his family, the former also suffered depression and remained bed ridden for a very long time and due to the same the appellant was not able to pursue the present case. Owing to his poor mental health conditions, the appellant was not aware about the final order passed by the learned District forum. He came to know about the knowledge of the impugned order when he received notice dated 19.07.2019 issued by this Commission for appearing personally or through counsel on 21.09.2018.   The local counsel  did not communicate present appellant about the case.    Due to the above said reasons, the appeal could not be filed, so the delay may be condoned. 

5.         This argument is not available.  As per the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a period of 30 days has been provided for filing an appeal against the order of the District Commission. The proviso therein permits the State Commission to entertain an appeal after the expiry of the period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there is “Sufficient cause” for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The expression of sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act rightly so, because it would vary from facts and circumstances of each case.

6.                         The inordinate delay of 574 days in appeal No.1263 of 2018 cannot be condoned in the light of the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

          The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Bikram Dass Vs. Financial Commissioner and others, AIR, 1977 Supreme Court 1221 has held that;

“Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around S.5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigant who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every days delay.”

          The Hon’ble National Commission in case Government of U.T. Electricity Department & Others versus Ram Lubhai, II(2006) CPJ 104 has held that:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 15 –Appeal –Maintainability – Limitation –Condonation of delay– Resjudicata –Appeal filed after a delay of 44 days –Plea of procedural delay in getting approval for filing appeal – Appeal filed by complainant against order of District Forum decided and copy of order dispatched to parties prior to filing of appeal by opposite party –Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed –Matter once finally concluded by any Court cannot be reopened by same Court.”

                In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari 2009 (2) Scale 108, it has   been observed:

         “We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition.”

      In Ram Lal and Ors.  Vs.  RewaCoalfields  Ltd., AIR  1962 Supreme Court 361, it has been observed;

“It is, however, necessary to emphasize that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by S.5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be done; the application for condonation has to be dismissed on that ground alone. If sufficient cause is shown then the Court has to enquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. This aspect of the matter naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its bona fides may fall for consideration; but the scope of the enquiry while exercising the discretionary power after sufficient cause is shown would naturally be limited only to such facts as the Court may regard as relevant.”

         

          Taking into consideration the pleas raised by appellant in the application for condonation of delay and settled principle of law, this Commission does not find it a fit case to condone delay of 574 days in filing of the appeal bearing No.1263 of 2018. Hence applications filed for condonation of delay  in appeal No.1263 of 2018 is dismissed.  

7.      The brief facts of the case are that complainants No.1 to 3 had deposited some amounts with opposite parties, the details of which are as under:-

          “FDR No. and amount                                       Maturity Date

          FDR No.12494 of Rs.24810/-                          10.06.2010

FDR No.12495 of Rs.25030/-                          10.06.2010

FDR No.12496 of Rs.23830/-                          09.06.2010

FDR No.12497 of Rs.21095/-                          09.06.2010

FDR No.12498 of Rs.6775/-                                      10.03.2010

FDR No.12499 of Rs.25030/-                          10.06.2010

Saving Account No.273 (SPl) Bal. Rs.34125/-

Saving Account No.272 (Spl.) Bal. Rs.34210/-“

 The above said amount was handed over to Ops No.2 and 3 and OP No.3 has issued the above said FDR’sin favour of the complainants. They made written as well as oral request to get the payment of deposit amount but all in vain. Ops had closed the society and absconded with all the money of depositors and criminal case against them was pending in the court and now the society is continuing under control of Asstt. Registrar coop. Society Rohtak i.e. OP No.4.The complainant requested the OP No.1 for payment of FDR, however, an amount of Rs.9000/- paid to them. The complainants again requested the Ops to make the balance payment, but they did not pay. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

8.      OP Nos.1 and 4 were proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.2 and 3 filed their separate written statement.  It was denied by OP No.2 that complainant handed over the said amount to it.
the answering OP has not played any fraud with anyone. The charge of the society has been taken over by Registrar coop, Society, Rohtak and OP NO.2 has no concern with affairs of society. The answering OP was not in a position to release the amount. There was no complaint received by answering OP. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.      OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that the complainants did not deposit any amount with it. It was further wrong that OP No.3 ever assured the complainant that whenever they wanted to withdraw the amount that will be released. The alleged FDRs  issued by OP No.1 were never issued by OP No.3. The answering OP was only the employee of OP No.1.Thusthere was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.    After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtakhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.03.2017, which is as under:-

“As such it is directed that respondent No.1 to 3 shall refund the maturity amount of alleged F.D.Rs and amount of saving bank accounts alongwith interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity of deposits till its actual realization to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.3500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses. However amount (if any) already refunded by the opposite parties on account of alleged FDRs shall be deducted from the maturity amount. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall  carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

11.    Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos. 2and 3have preferred these appeals.

12.    Arguments heard. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has been properly perused and examined.

13.    It is not disputed that the complainants have deposited some amount with the opposite parties in the shape of FDRs. It is also not disputed that the complainants requested the Ops to withdraw the amount, but, they did not pay any heed.  It is also not disputed that OP NOs.2 and 3 have direct control over all the functions of the society. The plea of the appellant in both the cases was that the complainants are not entitled for deposited amount as OP No.2 and 3-appellants in both cases were only the employees of OP No.1, as such they are not responsible for misdeeds of the OP No.1.  Perusal of the file shows that the complainant deposited the different amounts in the shape of FDRs and saving bank account total Rs.194905/-, which was not refunded except Rs.9000/-. Since the control over the society was with OP No.2 and 3, they are fully responsible for any act of misdeeds. The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

14.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellantsin both the cases stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeals bearing No.509 of 2017 and F.A. No.1263 of 2018 stands dismissed on merits.

15.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.509 of 2017 and Appeal bearing No.1263 of 2018 be refunded to the complainantsagainst proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

16.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

17.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

18.              File be consigned to record room.

19.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.509 of 2017 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.1263 of 2018.

 

14^thMarch, 2023       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)