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



Jaikantbhai Ambala Patel v/s Vasna Kosindra Group Cotton & Seeds Supply Society Ltd. & Another

    Revision Petition Nos. 3339, 3340, 3341, 3342, 3343 of 2012 in Appeal No. 1143 of 2009

    Decided On, 04 September 2015

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: Nachiketa S. Joshi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, P.V. Moorjani, Authorised Representative., R2, -----.



Judgment Text

1. M.A. No.5535 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioner for recall of order dated 30.7.2015 passed by this Commission, whereas I.A. No.5536 of 2015 has been filed for stay of execution and implementation of order dated 30.7.2015, passed by this Commission in R.P. No.3339 of 2012.

2. It shall be fruitful to narrate the brief history of these cases. In year 2009, Complainant/Respondent no.1 has filed Consumer Complaints against the Petitioner/Opposite Party on the allegations that complainant has deposited in all a sum of Rs.80 lakhs (Rupees Eight Lakhs ) approx. with the petitioner. The petitioner did not refund the amount after the maturity period.

3. Petitioner/Opponent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (‘District Forum ‘) did not appear despite service of the notice and as such was proceeded ex parte.

4. District Forum, partly allowed the complaints and directed the petitioner to pay respective amounts to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of deposit i.e. 16.3.2006 till realization. Besides this, petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- towards cost of the proceedings.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Petitioner filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (for short, ‘State Commission’) which after hearing both the parties rejected the same with cost.

6. Against impugned order of the State Commission, Petitioner has preferred these revision petitions.

7. Present revision petitions came up for hearing for the first time before this Commission on 25.9.2012. On that date, notice was issued to the respondents and ex parte stay was granted in favour of the petitioner.

8. On 18.1.2013, arguing counsel for petitioner was not present as he was ill and as such matter was adjourned to 21.8.2013.

9. On 21.8.2013, due to non-availability of quorum, matter was adjourned to 3.12.2013.

10. On 3.12.2013, there was no appearance on behalf of petitioner though AR of respondent no.1 was present.

11. As none was present on behalf of petitioner, the revision petitions were dismissed in default.

12. Thereafter, petitioner filed applications for restoration and same were allowed after hearing both the parties, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost in each case, since AR has to come from Vadodara (Gujarat) on each date of hearing. It was also ordered that out of the cost imposed, 50% be paid to respondent no.1, directly by way of demand draft and remaining amount be deposited in the name of ‘Consumer Legal Aid Account’ of this Commission. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

13. Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 2.7.2014 reduced the cost and made it as consolidated cost of Rs.15,000/- in all the cases.

14. As per order dated 18.9.2014, notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no.2. Since, there was no service report for service of respondent no.2, on 24.3.2015 fresh notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no.2 for 30.7.2015. In addition, dasti notice was ordered to be given to petitioner for carrying out service of respondent no.2

15. On 30.7.2015, counsel for petitioner did not appear. Instead one Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Advocate appeared as proxy counsel, whereas AR of respondent no.1was present. It was observed in the order, that no dasti notice has been collected by the petitioner. Therefore, petitions against respondent no.2 were dismissed for non-prosecution. Moreover, on 30.7.2015 on the first call matter was passed over at the request of proxy counsel that arguing counsel is busy in Supreme Court.

16. On the second call also, arguing counsel for petitioner was not present. AR of respondent no.1 stated, that he had come all the way from Vadodara (Gujarat). Since, AR of respondent no.1 has come all the way from Gujarat, in the interest of justice all petitions have been adjourned for today, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost (consolidated of all the cases). It was further directed, that adjournment cost should be remitted by petitioner to AR of respondent no.1, by way of demand draft directly in his name within four weeks. In case, petitioner fails to comply with above directions within the prescribed period, then all the petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without any further orders. Copy of order was ordered to be sent to the petitioner for information.

17. Now petitioner has filed the above noted applications on 13.8.2015.

18. The above facts clearly goes on to show that Petitioner since beginning delaying the matter, as Petitioner was ex parte before the District Forum.

19. Now, after getting ex parte stay in its favour, petitioner has been again delaying the matters on one pretext or the other. It would also be pertinent to point out, that complainant had deposited the aforesaid amount of money with petitioner, as early as in the year 2006. Thus, only intention of the petitioner appears to delay the matter on one pretext or the other and not allow this Commission to proceed with the proceedings.

20. As noted above after filing these petitions, the same were dismissed in default and on filing of applications, these were restored. Thereafter, when matters were listed on 30.7.2015, arguing counsel for petitioner did not appear, whereas AR of respondent no.1 had come all the way from Vadodara (Gujarat).

21. Further, the record shows, that AR of respondent no.1 has been coming from Vadodara (Gujarat) on alm

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ost each and every date of hearing. Under these circumstances, adjournment cost of Rs.10,000/- (consolidated of all the cases) were rightly imposed upon the petitioner. No ground whatsoever is made out for recall of order dated 30.7.2015 passed by this Commission. Accordingly, above noted applications for recall of order as well as stay, stand dismissed. 22. Since, petitioner has not complied with order dated 30.7.2015 within the prescribed period and has been trying to scuttle that order and delay the matter on one pretext or the other, all these petitions stand dismissed for non-compliance of order dated 30.7.2015.
O R