AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PETITIONERS were the Opposite Parties before the District Forum. Complainant/Respondent (hereinafter to be referred as ''Respondent'') being a registered Exporter was entitled to REP licences against the exports made by it under the scheme prepared by the PETITIONERS for the relevant period 1988-93. Respondent applied for REP licences against the export of Rs.6,16,116/- during the above period for which they were entitled to a premium of 20% of the amount of exports under the scheme. As scheme for issue of REP licences was dis-continued, the premium of Rs.1,23,223/- was not paid. Respondent was informed by the PETITIONERS that the application filed by it was under consideration and action will follow in due course. Subsequently, Respondent received intimation that the Additional Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had passed an order on 3.09.91 keeping the grant of premium to the Respondent in abeyance from 3.2.88 to 31.3.92 which period was further extended to 31.3.93. Later on, debarment circular dated 9.9.91 was issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi.
RESPONDENT, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the Appellate Committee, Ministry of Commerce which accepted the appeal on 5.8.96 and the debarment circular dated 9.9.91 was withdrawn by circular dated 2.9.96. After withdrawal of the debarment circular, RESPONDENT made several representations to the Petitioners for grant and release of the premium amount of Rs.1,23,223/- with interest thereon but there was no response from the Petitioners. After several visits, RESPONDENT was informed by the concerned officials that the scheme for issue of REP licenses had been done away with and it''s case file was not traceable. RESPONDENT was asked to give details of relevant files in respect of its claim which were supplied by the RESPONDENT. Vide letter No. 01/92/180/406/Misc./PC-II/1029 dated 15.11.01, RESPONDENT was informed by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India that the premium scheme had been closed long back and its request for refund of premium of Rs.1,23,223/- against the issue of REP Licence @ 20% on export of Rs.6,16,116/- could not be granted. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter of the Petitioners, RESPONDENT filed the complaint before the District Forum. Despite notice, Petitioner did not appear and ordered to be proceeded ex-parte. Taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners to pay the sum of Rs.1,23,223/- to the Respondent along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Petitioners were directed to pay the amount within three months from the date of passing of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of payment.
Petitioners, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Plea taken by the Petitioners that they were not liable to pay the premium amount as the scheme was subsequently withdrawn was not accepted by the State Commission. It was held that the subsequent withdrawal of the scheme could not dis-entitle the Respondent from reaping the benefits of the scheme prevalent at the relevant time. That withdrawal of the scheme would operate prospectively and not retrospectively. Petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present revision Petition. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. Withdrawal of the scheme could not deprive the Respondent of the benefits which had already accrued to it under the scheme. The withdrawal of the scheme was prospective in nature and not retrospective. A benefit accrued under the scheme could not be withdrawn only because the scheme had been dis-continued for future.
THIS apart, Petitioners were proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum as they did not appear in spite of service. The facts stated in the complaint and the evidence led by the Respondent remained unrebutted. Under the circumstances, District Forum rightly allowed the complaint taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct. The facts now convinced before us were not produced before the District Forum. Petitioners did not file any application seeking permission to take additional documents on record. In the absence of any permission, documents which were not produced in evidence before the District Forum cannot be now taken into consideration at the time of arguments. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.