Kotak Mahindra Bank Through its Manager vs Satish Kumar

HEARD Counsel for the petitioner. Delay of 14 days is condoned.

THIS revision has been filed against order dated 27.10.2009 of the State Commission hereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay of 138 days in filing the appeal as also on merits. The grievance of the complainant was that the present petitioner had forcibly taken the possession of the vehicle despite the fact that the complainant was ready and willing to make payment of the of the entire loan amount in lump sum. The State Commission found that the present petitioner was proceeded exparte and after complainant gave no objection, the petitioners were allowed to join the proceedings. However, the matter was proceeded exparte again against the present petitioner. The State Commission found that the act and conduct of the present petitioner indicated that the petitioner was bent upon delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other. The State Commission also took into account the report dated 2.12.2008 of Local Commissioner Advocate Shri S.P. Tyagi.

The District forum has recorded findings that the averments of the petitioner in the written statement that the vehicle had been sold to some other person was found to be false, in the light of the report of the Local Commissioner Advocate Shri S.P. Tyagi who had reported that the vehicle in question was still lying in the premises of the petitioner at Rohtak. The District Forum had also found that the petitioner had willingly and intentionally disobeyed the interim order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Forum whereby the petitioners were directed to deliver possession of the vehicle in question on receipt of the whole balance amount due from the complainant. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on merits. There are thus concurrent finding of two Fora below.

IN addition, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner on account of delay in filing the appeal by 138 days. The District Forum had, therefore, ordered compensation of Rs.35,000/- for loss of business and income as also awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- on account of harassment and litigation expenses. The State Commission found that no sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing the appeal and the conclusion of the State Commission is well founded. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the orders passed by the Fora below. The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs