ROSHAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. vs NOOR MD. I. FOOTWEL

-IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 25.9.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat, Ahmedabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 20.3.2006 of a District Forum qua the petitioner.

RESPONDENTS/complainants had deposited certain amount with the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 in fixed deposit and on maturity amount not being paid they filed complaint. Vide order dated 20.3.2006 the complaint was allowed ex parte by the District Forum with direction to the petitioner and other opposite parties to pay the maturity amount of FDRs Ext. 311 to 318 with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 26.12.2002, the date of maturity with compensation and cost. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner and other opposite parties filed appeal which was dismissed qua the petitioner. Short submission advanced by Mr. Pratap Shanker for petitioner is that petitioner was not served with the notice in complaint. Identical submission was advanced in appeal but was negated. Para No. 5 of the order of State Commission dealing with this submission notices that the certified copy of the postal cover sent by the District Forum to the petitioner which bore the endorsement "refused" was filed along with the receipt of Akashganga Courier Pvt. Ltd. and considering this evidence the petitioner was found to be served with the notice. Order of District Forum also noticed that though the petitioner and other opposite parties were served but they did not appear and were, thus, proceeded ex parte vide order dated 7.1.2006. Consumer Protection Regulations 2005 provide for service of notices by a courier service. In view of concurrent finding regarding service of notice, I am not inclined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the orders passed by Fora below on ground of non-service of notice on the petitioner.

That apart, in the reply to respondent''s legal notice the stand taken by the petitioner was that it was unable to pay the maturity amount due to financial crisis. On being asked about the probable defence of the petitioner, Mr. Pratap Shanker reiterates the said stand taken in reply. In my view, petitioner cannot validly oppose passing of the award on ground of its not being in a position to pay the maturity amount of the fixed deposits. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. Revision Petition dismissed.