w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. v/s Rajesh Kumar Chauhan

    First Appeal No. 456 of 2018

    Decided On, 30 May 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR
    By, MEMBER

    For the Appellant: T.K. Dadhich, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ashok Sinha, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Counsel for the respondent has tendered his vakalatanama which is taken on record.

The First Appeal has been filed with a delay of five days. For the reasons given, the same are condoned. On 03.01.2018, the State Commission has passed the following order:

'The matter has been heard on the point of admissibility of written statement from both the parties.

It is clear from perusal of case file and record that the notice was sent to opposite party in compliance of order dated 25.05.2017 on dated 27.05.2017 through registered post, the same was not received back un-served. Hence, vide order dated 28.06.2017 it has been found sufficient that the notice has been served upon opposite party. But on this date the opposite party did not appear and no written statement had been filed. Hence, vide order dated 28.06.2017, the matter was adjourned for 10.07.2017 for complainant’s evidence. Thereafter, the written statement dated 17.07.2017 was presented by opposite party through box medium. This written statement has been filed after 45 days of prescribed time limit. This written statement has been presented after closing of time limited for filing written statement vide order dated 28.06.2017. The matter was fixed for complainant’s evidence vide order dated 28.06.2017 and this Commission does not have power to recall his earlier order. Hence, it is not legally tenable to accept the written statement after passing of prescribed time limit and when the matter was fixed for complainant’s evidence.

Complainant had filed complainant’s evidence.

The matter is now fixed for final hearing on 06.02.2018'.

The reasons given in the first appeal by the appellant for not filing the written statement are as under:

* On 25.05.2017 the matter came up before court and notice for appearance of appellant was issued by State Commission, Lucknow. The notice was sent through registered post on 27.05.2017 as per the averment mentioned in impugned order dated 03.01.2018.

* Thereafter the matter came up again for hearing on 28.06.2017 and the court presumed service effected on 27.05.2017 because the process issued was not received back unserved and further without verifying the actual service affected on appellant have chosen to proceed ex parte due to non-appearance of the appellant and thereafter the matter was adjourned for evidence of respondent/ complainant.

* The authorised representative who was indisposed and hospitalised due to failures of both kidneys therefore, the matter was not assigned to the advocate due to this reasons none appeared on behalf of the appellant in State Commission, Lucknow, consequently the defence of the appellant stuck off and court proceeded ex parte against the appellant.

* The authorised representative of appellant after discharging from hospital and after betterment of his health he resumed office of the appellant immediately contacted to the Advocate and without any delay written statement was prepared and filed.

Counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that the matter may be remanded back to the State Commission for filing the written statement and the matter be decided on merit, subject to cost

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

. Hence, the First Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the written statement already filed may be taken on record and the matter be decided on merit, subject to cost of Rs.20,000/-. Cost be paid by the appellant to the respondent within four weeks. Both the parties to appear before the State Commission on 5th July 2018.
O R