Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr.

on 8 September, 2014

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW
DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.

2263 OF 2013

(From the order dated 11.02.2013 in Appeal No.612/2012

of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Delhi)

WITH

IA/3762/2013 (Stay)

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

Allahabad Bank

Having its Head Office at

2, Netaji Subash Road,

Kolkata

and

one of its branch offices at

17, Parliament Street,

New Delhi

110 001

Through its Chief Manager

Shri Marut
Chatterjea Petitioners/Opposite Parties (OP)

Versus

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

1. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar

S/o late Sh. Ram Prasad Poddar

R/o S-483, 3rd

Floor, School Block,

Shakurpur,
Delhi 110092

2. M/s. Shalimar Estates (P)

Ltd.

SCO 110-111, Sector 8C

Chandigarh

Respondents/Complainants

BEFORE

HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.

CHAUDHARI,

PRESIDING MEMBER

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Gautam, Advocate

For the Res. No. 1

: Mr. Manoj R. Sinha, Advocate

For the Res. No. 2

: NEMO

PRONOUNCED ON 8th September, 2014

O R D E R

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by
the petitioner against the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 612 of 2012 Allahabad
Bank Vs. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. by which, application for condonation of delay was
dismissed and appeal was dismissed as time barred.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Respondent No.1 filed complaint before District
Forum and submitted that for allotment of land, he applied by application and deposited
Rs.17,820/- with OP No. 1/petitioner, who are authorized agent for collecting applications on behalf
of OP No. 2/Respondent No. 2. It was further alleged that later on, complainant deposited amount
with OP No. 2 and as scheme of allotment of plots was delayed, he requested for refund of amount to
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

OP No.
2. As amount was not returned, alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint
before District Forum. OP No. 1 filed written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP
No. 2 did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum allowed complaint and
directed OPs to refund Rs.84,951/- along with interest. OP no. 1 filed appeal before State
Commission along with application for condonation of delay which was dismissed by impugned
order against which; this revision petition has been filed.

3. None appeared for Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of very good case of the petitioner,
learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay,
though, petitioner got order of District Forum on 20.6.2012 and appeal was filed on 7.7.2012; hence,
revision petition be allowed and application for condonation of delay be allowed and matter may be
remanded back for disposal of appeal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law;
hence, revision petition be dismissed.
6. Apparently, there was delay of 329 days in filing appeal, but petitioner submitted in the
application that petitioner was under bonafide mistaken impression that filing of reply would suffice
as they had no liability and no Advocate was engaged. It was further submitted that petitioner
received notice dated 20.6.2012 from Dy. Commissioner directing Bank to pay decreed amount and
immediately appeal was filed on 7.7.2012, so, delay may be condoned.
Learned State Commission observed that as there was no satisfactory explanation for condonation
of delay, application was dismissed.

7. No doubt, there was delay of 329 days in filing appeal, but perusal of record reveals that after
filing written statement, appellant did not appear before District Forum and order was passed in his
absence. Appellant came to know about the order on receiving order dated 20.6.2012 and
immediately filed appeal on 7.7.2012.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/

Allahabad Bank vs Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. on 8 September, 2014

8. Not only this, perusal of complaint itself reveals that complainant deposited Rs.17,820/- with
application with the petitioner and rest of the amount was deposited with OP No. 2, but District
Forum allowed complaint against both the parties for refunding whole amount. Learned Counsel for
the petitioner has also drawn my attention towards brochure of OP No. 2 in which it was clearly
mentioned that Allahabad Bank is acting as collecting banker and owns no responsibility for
allotment or for refund of earnest money. Thus, it becomes clear that prima facie order directing
petitioner to pay full amount may not be correct. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on judgment of Honble Apex Court in (2007) 14 SCC 606 Bogidhola Tea & Trading
Company Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hira Lal Somani in which it was observed that if ex facie order suffered
from non-application of mind, delay in filing appeal should be condoned. He also placed reliance on
(2011) 11 SCC 480 Union of India Vs. Giani in which application for condonation of delay was
allowed as there was strong arguable case in favour of the appellant.

9. In the light of aforesaid judgments and discussion towards liability of petitioner, learned State
Commission ought to have allowed application for condonation of delay subject to cost and has
committed error in dismissing application and in such circumstances; revision petition is to be
allowed.

10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated
11.2.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short,
the State Commission) in Appeal No. 612 of 2012 Allahabad Bank Vs. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar
& Anr. is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner is allowed subject
to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No. 1/ Complainant and delay in filing appeal
stands condoned and State Commission is directed to decide appeal on merits after giving an
opportunity of being heard to both the parties .

11. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 27.10.2014.

Sd/( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J) PRESIDING MEMBER k

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/198576347/