AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Called out, in its turn. No one appears for the petitioner. Learned proxy counsel is present for the respondent.
Called out again, at the end of the board. No one appears.
Perused the record.
This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.04.2013 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1756 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 03.11.2009 of the District Commission in complaint no. 369 of 2009.
The dispute relates to forcible re-possession of a three-wheeler vehicle of the borrower complainant (the respondent herein) by the lender bank (the petitioner herein).
The District Commission vide its Order dated 03.11.2009 dismissed the complaint. The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.04.2013 re-appraised the facts and evidence and holding that "the respondent bank has not followed the procedure prescribed before repossessing the vehicle in question" accepted the appeal and allowed the complaint. It ordered the lender bank to hand over possession of the subject vehicle to the complainant after receiving due payment of installments without levying any penalty charges or miscellaneous expenses etc. and in case it was unable to deliver possession of the vehicle to the complainant to pay him lumpsum Rs. 1 lakh as compensation including litigation expenses.
We note that no time-frame for complying with its Order was stipulated by the State Commission, and also specifically that no interest for delay in paying the lumpsum Rs. 1 lakh compensation was factored in. We further note that the complaint was filed in 2009, the District Commission pronounced its Order in 2009, the State Commission pronounced its Order in 2013, the instant petition was filed before this Commission in 2014, we are now in 2021. The way and manner in which the petition has been procrastinated from 2014 onwards is a matter of record which need not be elaborated here. The complainant has a favourable order from the State Commission in his hand, protracted efflux of time in complying with the State Commission's Order is progressively diluting the efficacy of the award itself.
In the overall facts and circumstances of the case and as things obtain on date, we deem it just and appropriate that in the absence of the petitioner today the petition be dismissed in default for lack of prosecution. Thus petition stands dismissed. The lender bank shall comply with the State Commission's award within four weeks from today failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution as per the law.
The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.