HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr vs Vinay Thapar & Ors

Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, Member

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties against the Respondents/ Complainants challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab in Misc. Application No.1475 of 2020 in and with Revision Petition bearing No. 28 of 2020 filed against the interim order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ludhiana. Vide such order, the State Commission had dismissed the Petition being barred by time.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant No.1 had taken a loan from the Opposite Parties through the Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant No.2 stood as guarantor. The Complainants had filed a Complaint before the Ld. District Forum being aggrieved by the unilateral decision of the Opposite Parties to increase the rate of interest and extend the period of instalments from 120 to 145 months.

The Ld. District Forum vide its interim order dated 23.12.2019 had proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties and had noted in its order as follows-

“Notice to OP1 and OP2 sent through registered post on 16.10.2019. Period of 30 days has elapsed, but neither registered cover nor AD received back served or unserved. So by drawing presumption of due service and after finding that none turned up for OP1 and OP2 despite wait till 03.36 PM, OP1 and OP2 are proceeded against exparte. Now case is adjourned to 05.02.2020 for exparte evidence of complainant. List of witnesses to be summoned, if any, be filed within 2 days with Ahlmad of this Forum.”

Aggrieved by the above order, Revision Petition bearing No.28 of 2020 along with Misc. Application bearing no. 1475 of 2020 for condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the said Revision were filed by Petitioners/ Opposite Parties against the Respondents/ Complainants before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, Punjab.

The Ld. State Commission vide its impugned order dated 19.10.2020 had dismissed the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay and consequently, the Revision Petition being barred by time while observing inter-alia:

“In view of above discussion and the law laid down, it is clear that the delay has to be explained properly and sufficient cause for causing delay must be disclosed and the delay caused on account of dilatory tactics, inaction and casual approach cannot be condoned. In the present case, as discussed above, no valid reasons or the explanations have been given for condonation of the delay of 163 days. Thus, I do not find any ground to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the revision petition.”

Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and the Respondent. Perused the material available on record.

The Exparte order was passed by the Ld. District Forum on 23.12.2019.  It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners that Revision against the said Order was liable to be filed within 90 days from that date.  But, in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 23.9.2021 had directed that the limitation w.e.f. 15.3.2020 would extend till 3.10.2021, on account of which according to the Petitioners, the Revision filed in the Ld. State Commission on 1.11.2020 did not suffer from any defect of limitation. The fact that in the meantime, the Petitioners had already approached the Ld. District Forum on 5.2.2020 with a prayer to recall the Exparte Order, which was not maintainable, is therefore altogether inconsequential since the Petitioners were within their right to have filed the revision against such Order within 90 days therefrom. To that extent, it may be held that the Petitioners could possibly have been granted the benefit of condonation of delay in filing the Revision Petition before the Ld. Apex Court.

But having perused the entire material available in the case file, this Commission is of the opinion that there was no substantive merit in the Revision Petition preferred before the Ld. State Commission, even assuming that it could not have been dismissed as being time barred. The reasons for which this Commission has come to such view follow in the succeeding paragraphs.

It transpires that notices in the original complaint were issued as far back as on 16.10.2019, but since the registered cover was not received back so the presumption was rightly drawn that the same had been duly served.  In addition, the notice also issued Dasti was taken by the concerned Process-server at the designated branch of the Petitioner-Bank at Plot No.B-19-65/SE, the Mall, Lower Ground Floor Ist Mall, Ludhiana, and it was tendered to the Manager of the Petitioner Bank namely Mr. Ajay Sehgal, on 5.12.2019.  But, the said Branch Manager had refused to receive the said notice, on account of which the Process-server reported –

“On 5.12.2019, I visited at the given address of opposite party no. 1, there Ajay Sehgal Branch Manager met me.  He said that summons he sent to their legal branch Miller ganj, Ludhiana and Ajay Sehgal refused to receive summons. Report is submitted please.

SD/-Gurdeep Singh

Dated 05.12.2019”

It may be observed that where any process is taken for service, the same is meant to be delivered at the specified address alone, and it is not open to the representative of the addressee to ask the process-server to serve it on any other person at any different address.  Mr. Ajay Sehgal, the Branch Manager, was certainly the actual Authorised Person to receive the notice, and in consequence of his refusal to do so, it is to be accepted as a valid service.

At any rate, even the version given by the Petitioner in its application for condonation of delay in filing the revision before the Ld. State Commission was altogether different from that given in its own application filed before the Ld. District Forum on 5.2.2020 in which the prayer had been made to recall the Exparte order.  It had been contended on behalf of the Petitioner/Bank –

“4.  That it is only today when the applicant was passing through the Consumer Forum and he heard about the calling of the present complaint.”

On the other hand, in the application for condonation of delay filed before the Ld. District Forum, the version of the Petitioner Bank was that its concerned officers learnt about the Exparte order/proceedings in the consumer complaint “from the website when they were checking some other case”.

In view of such manifestly contradictory versions regarding the time and circumstances under which the Petitioners allegedly got information about the consumer complaint, and also in view of the fact that valid service of the notice issued by the Registered Post had been rightly presumed, as also that the Petitioner’s own Branch Manager, Mr. Ajay Sehgal, had himself refused to accept the Dasti notice when tendered to him by the Process server, there remains no doubt that the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioners in the Ld. State Commission was just a belated attempt to cover up their palpable laches.

For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that no adequate grounds exist for interfering with the final decision of the Ld. State Commission by virtue of which the Revision Petition filed before it was dismissed.  This Commission also holds that such Revision Petition ought to have been dismissed as being bereft of any substantive merits, although for entirely different reasons from those determined by the Ld. State Commission.

The instant Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.  No orders as to costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.