Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt.

Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

National Consumer Disputes Redressal


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW
DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.


2617 OF 2012

( I. A. No. 1 of 2012
for Condonation of Delay)

(I.A. No. 2 of 2012 for Stay)

(From order dated 30.12.2011 in


Appeal No.18 of 2010

of the State Consumer Disputes


Redressal Commission, Chennai)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 1


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

Ambadi Enterprises Limited,

Rep. by its Director,

5th Floor, Parry House,

43, Moore Street,

Chennai-600 001

Revisionist

Versus

Tmt.
Rajalakshmi Subramanian

No. 10, Thiruvengadam

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 2


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

Street
Extension,

Mandaveli,
Chennai-600 028 Respondent

BEFORE:

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,


PRESIDING MEMBER

HONBLE
MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate

Pronounced on: 26th


February, 2013

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 3


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

ORDER

PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER In this revision petition there is challenge
to order dated 30.12.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai(For
short, State Commission).

2. Brief facts are that, respondent/complainant had availed a housing loan from petitioner/o.p. for
purchase of house property. Even after discharge of the entire loan, petitioner has not returned the
original deeds/documents of the properties, which were deposited with it at the time of availing the
loan, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. Hence, respondent sought
directions to the petitioner to return original deed of her property and to pay a sum of Rs.1 Lac as
compensation for illegally retaining the house property title deeds even after discharge of the loan,
and Rs.3 Lac as compensation for mental agony and physical stress, and a further a sum of Rs. 1 Lac
for the unfair trade practice, and costs.

3. Petitioner in its written statement took the plea that respondent is not a consumer qua the
petitioner. It is the respondents husband who has availed the loan and there are criminal complaints
against him lodged by the petitioner. So, the original title deeds of respondents property which were
deposited as security with it cannot be returned to her since petitioner has a right to recover the
money misappropriated by the respondents husband. Thus, there is no deficiency on its part.

5. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that
complaint is not maintainable and that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of
the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, respondent preferred an appeal before the
State Commission which vide its impugned order, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the order
of District Forum.

7. Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, petitioner has filed the present petition.
Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed. However, no period of
delay has been mentioned. But, as per office noting, there is a delay of 78 days in filing of this
petition.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though there is delay in filing of
the present revision petition but same is not intentional. It was on account of the file having been
misplaced in the office of the counsel for the petitioner at Chennai. Petitioner has a good case on
merits and as such delay should be condoned.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 4


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

10. The only ground on which condonation of delay has been sought read as under ;

3. That the Petitioner respectfully submits that there is a delay of _______ days in filing the
aforesaid petition which is not intentional but on account of the file being misplaced in the office of
the counsel for the petitioner at Chennai.

11. State Commission, in its impugned order observed ;

7. There is no dispute that the complainant discharged the entire housing loan availed from the
opposite party and that the complainants documents were not returned to her by the opposite party,
pending criminal proceedings against her husband. Even otherwise, the above documents
Ex.A1,A2,A7 and Ex.A3 in particular, clearly go to establish that the complainant availed housing
loan from the opposite party and that the complainant has discharged the loan in full and that her
original documents given as security for her loan were retained by the opposite party for the reason
that there were criminal proceedings against the complainants husband initiated at their instance.

8. Therefore, it is evident that the complainant is the beneficiary of the housing loan and that she is
a consumer who has availed housing loan from the opposite party and they have consumer
relationship, and therefore the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not a
consumer of the opposite party, is untenable, and therefore the complaint is very well maintainable
before the Consumer Forum.

12 It is well settled that sufficient cause for condoning the delay in each case is a question of fact.

13. 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.

14. Honble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the case law on the aspect of condonation
of delay observed in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development
Corporation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 459 as under;

We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy.
The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties
but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is
that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently,
the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the
legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if
sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 5


Ambadi Enterprises Limited, vs Tmt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian on 26 February, 2013

The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and
similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner
which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing
with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a
liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is
inordinate - Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987)2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan
v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123 and 10 Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 9 SCC
106.

15. Apex Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ
63 (SC) has observed ;

It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of
delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the
object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to
entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer foras.

16. Observations made by Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above are fully
attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. In entire application for condonation of delay, no period of delay has been mentioned. Moreover,
it is nowhere stated as to what is the name of counsel in whose office the file was misplaced nor it is
mentioned as to on which date the file was misplaced and when the same was traceable. Even
affidavit of that counsel, in whose office the file was misplaced and later on traced out, has not been
placed on record.

18. Thus, gross negligence, deliberate inaction and lack of bonafides is imputable to the petitioners.
Accordingly, no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the long delay of 78 days in filing the
present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay under these circumstances is not
maintainable and present revision petition being barred by limitation is hereby dismissed with cost
of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only).

19. Petitioner is directed to deposit cost of by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare
Fund as per Rule10A of Consumer Protection Rules,1987, within four weeks from today. In case, it
fails to deposit the cost within prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till
its realization.

20. Pending applications, if any stand disposed of.

21. List on 26.04.2013 for compliance.

..J (V.B. GUPTA) (PRESIDING MEMBER) (REKHA GUPTA) MEMBER SSB

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/183464486/ 6