AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the material on record.
In the interest of justice, and to settle the matter on merit, the delay of 17 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.
The dispute relates to non- payment of the maturity amounts by the opposite parties, hereinafter referred to as the 'finance corporation', on the deposits made by the complainant with the finance corporation.
Despite substituted service through publication, none appeared for the finance corporation before the District Forum. The District Forum heard the complainant, appraised the evidence and vide its Order dated 11.09.2012 allowed the complaint. We note in particular the following extracts from the District Forum's Order:
On perusal of the case file, this fact is undisputed that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 5260/- in the Account No. 1076926, maturity date : 30.12.98, Amount: Rs. 6417/- , amount deposited Rs. 1,80,300/- in Account No. 1077203, Maturity date : 30.6.98 , amount : 20,1600/- , amount deposited of Rs. 45200/- in Account No. 1077055 , Maturity date : 15.4.99 , amount : Rs. 54144, amount deposited Rs. 1000/- in Account No. B 0191003, maturity date : 30.12.98 , amount : Rs. 1200/-.
After considering upon all the case, we reach at this conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get the amount deposited in the Finance Company of the defendants with interest because the defendants have acquired benefit on the amount deposited by the complainant.
ORDER
Therefore, this District Consumer Forum directs to the defendants to pay the maturity amount of the Account No. 1076926 Rs. 6417.00, maturity amount of Rs. 20,1600.00 of the Account No. 1077203 , maturity amount of Rs. 54144.00 of the Account No. 1077055 , maturity amount of Rs. 1200.00 of the Account No. B- 0191003 with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the maturity date 30.12.98 , 30.06.98, 15.04.99,30.12.98 respectively, in addition to above , to pay Rs. 200.00 against costs of case. In the event of non - compliance of the Order, execution proceedings as per rules shall be carried out.
(as per the translated copy furnished by the petitioner)
(emphasis supplied)
The manager of the finance corporation appealed in the State Commission. The State Commission heard both sides, appraised the evidence and through its Order dated 08.10.2015 dismissed the appeal. We note in particular the following extracts from the State Commission's Order:
Shri. S.K. Verma, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Shri. V.S. Bisariya, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent are present. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the case file and Grounds of appeal.
It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that he was an employee, therefore, he has no accountability.
It is clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that there are no whereabouts of the above- named Finance Company and its employees connivingly and deceitfully have collected the amount and now state in this manner in the court that they were employee and they have no accountability, but no certificate (evidence) of the same has been filed.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Judgment/Order, which has been passed by the District Consumer Forum, has been passed in view of all the records and evidence. There is no need of making any interference in it. Appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal of the appellant is dismissed.
Both the parties shall bear their own costs of the case.
(as per the translated copy furnished by the petitioner)
(emphasis supplied)
The manager of the finance corporation has filed the instant revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Act 1986 against the said Order dated 08.10.2015 of the State Commission.
We find the impugned Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. The State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum.
Even though the finance corporation chose to be ex parte before the District Forum, its manager appealed in the State Commission, the State Commission heard both sides, appraised the case, and as such the finance corporation got fair opportunity before the State Commission.
Within the ambit and scope of section 21(b), we find no crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require re-appreciation of the evidence in revision.
We find the award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 4 above), and as upheld by the State Commission, to be just and equitable.
On the face of it, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may require interference in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Act 1986.
The revision petition, being patently misconceived and totally bereft of merit, is dismissed.
Needless to say that the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.
A copy each of this Order be sent to the District Forum and to the complainant by the Registry within three days of its pronouncement.