Writ petition filed by M/s.Midhuna Chit Funds Ltd. challenging the State Consumer Commission's rejection of an application to condone delay in filing an appeal. The court held notice requirements were met.
Writ petition and miscellaneous petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.29268 OF 2010
March 28, 2012
Between: M/s.Midhuna Chit Funds Ltd., Ongole Represented by its Managing Director, Sri D.Sangram, S/o.Koti Reddy
... Petitioner
And
The Registrar, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad And others
... Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.29268 OF 2010
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioner is a chit fund company. Among others, it started chit ticket No.41 for the value of Rs.1,00,000/- payable in 50 instalments at Rs.2,000/- per month. The third respondent herein joined the said chit. He filed C.D. No.69 of 2001. He alleged that he paid 36 instalments to the petitioner; when he went to the office it remained closed for long time and therefore he could not pay the balance instalments and that in spite of repeated requests the petitioner failed to refund/pay an amount of Rs.72,000/- which was paid towards chit instalments. By order dated 08.4.2004 the District Consumer Forum, Ongole allowed the Consumer Dispute Case. As per the order though the petitioner appeared through an advocate, Mr.M.Ramprasad, subsequently the petitioner failed to appear before the Forum and, therefore, the District Forum passed orders in favour of the third respondent.
About six years thereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (the State Commission) under Section 15(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act) along with an application being F.A.I.A. No.1577 of 2010 for condoning the delay of 2252 days. The application having been dismissed by impugned order dated 04.8.2010 the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The Counsel for the petitioner would contend that when the
notice ordered by the District Forum is not served on the opposite party in accordance with Section 28A of the Act, and when the opposite party denies the factum of engaging Counsel, in law it should be deemed that there is no valid notice. This contention is refuted by the Counsel for the other side.
A perusal of the impugned order would show that the issue raised by the petitioner was considered by the State Commission after summoning the record from the District Forum. On perusal of the record, the State Commission found that vakalat was filed by the petitioner’s Counsel subsequent to the personal notice taken out by the third respondent. This, in our considered opinion, is sufficient compliance with Section 28A(1) of the Act and therefore, the plea cannot be accepted. The impugned order does not suffer from any error warranting interference.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
March 28, 2012 YS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to serve notice properly or denial of counsel engagement invalidates proceedings under Section 28A of the Consumer Protection Act.
Whether the State Commission erred in admitting the appeal despite the petitioner's delay.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s.Midhuna Chit Funds Ltd.
The Registrar, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad
V.V.S.Rao
G.Krishna Mohan Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
