TEENMURTI CHITS (P) LTD. Vs. V.K.SAHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 45 days in filing the revision. It is stated in the application that the copy of the judgment of the State Commission was prepared only on 4.3.2009. However, the certified copy, which is at pages 18 -25, shows that true copy was issued to the petitioner on 17.12.2008. Except for general reasons for delay in filing the revision, no other details have been given in the application for condonation of delay. It is stated that Advocate, Uday Singh did not come to the office from 21.3.2009 as his sister fell ill and died on 8.4.2009. No affidavit of Advocate, Uday Singh has been filed. Affidavit of the Director of the Company has been filed in which, para 7 of the application for condonation of delay has been verified on the basis of the true and correct personal knowledge of the Director of the Petitioner -Company. How could the Director of the Petitioner -Company verify first 3 lines of para 7 of the application is beyond our comprehension. In our opinion, there is no satisfactory explanation for delay and application for condonation for delay is rejected.

(2.) LD . Counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was consumer as also that the complaint was not barred by limitation. It was also urged that the complainant had failed to prove that he continued to be the member of the scheme as he had defaulted in making payments. It was also urged that Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in view of Section 64(3) of Chit Fund Act. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on two judgments of this Commission in Dwarkadhish Chits Pvt. Ltd. and v. Sanju Ram Aggarwal1 and Kovilakam Chits and Financial Service Ltd. v. K.L. Benny2 and judgment of the Apex Court in K. Sagar, M.D., Kioran Chit Fund Musheerabad v. A. Bal Reddv and Anr.

(3.) THE complaint had been filed on 28.9.1995 before the District Forum and the District Forum had passed ex parte order dated 24.12.1997 directing the petitioner to refund Rs.1,00,000/ - with interest and Rs.500/ - towards cost of litigation. The petitioner had challenged the said order in appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 30.5.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 24.12.1997 of the District Forum with direction to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.