HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. RANJIT KUMAR SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24th October, 2011 passed by learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S. C. Case No. F.A. No.180 of 2011.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner bank that the O. P.s. lodged a false complaint before the District Consumer Forum that out of total aggregate loan amount of Rs.5,25,000/- only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was disbursed by the petitioner bank and failed to release the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. The O. P.s. being complainants made allegations of deficiencies in service by the bank in said complaint suppressing the facts that they received a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for non-payment of major part of the loan amount. On receipt of a copy of said complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereafter to be referred as the Act of 1986) the petitioner appeared being O. P. and filed written version on 11th of February, 2009. On the ground of not having any official seal of the bank the District Forum directed the bank to file fresh written version with official seal. The District Forum without considering the written version of the bank proceeded to adjudicate said complaint on merit ex parte and by an order being No.17 dated 23rd of March, 2010 passed an award purportedly holding the bank responsible for deficiencies in service and thereby directing the bank to release a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- being the balance amount of the loan and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and further Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. Being aggrieved with said order the petitioner bank preferred an appeal before State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereafter to be referred as State Commission) being S. C. Case No. F.A.180 of 2011 together with an application for condonation of delay of 375 days in filing said appeal.

(3.) Mr. Amitesh Banerjee appearing for the petitioner bank submits that in the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the petitioner bank gave detailed reasons for said delay of 375 days but learned State Commission did not consider the same in its proper perspective. He further submits that learned State Commission did not apply the settled principles of law in the matter of disposing of said application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to him, the words 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. He further submits that at the time of disposing of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the court should concentrate on the grounds mentioned in the petition and not on other grounds. He further submits that in the case in hand learned State Commission without considering the grounds mentioned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act put much stress for certifying the order of learned District Forum as a right one. In support of his contention he refers a case law (Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others vs. Gobardhan Sao and others, 2002 3 SCC 195) wherein it was held that the term 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.