Blog

The reasons stated in the application were insufficient. The appellant should have filed them in a timely manner. This Commission need not wait for just a decision over whether or not to accept the appeal. The appeal must be filed in less than 45 days of the order’s date. As a result, the application was not acceptable and was not allowed under the law. This was held in the case of Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt Ltd v. Smt. Varsha Sharma [ A/738/2021], before Hon’ble Presiding Member, Mr. Ravishankar and Member, Mrs. Smt Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi.

The brief facts of the case are as follows; the complainants deposited Rs.7,90,000/- and Rs.5,10,000/- in the Opposite Party company for the guaranteed interest of 17% per year, which is payable annually. The appellants/complainants issued deposit receipts and paid interest at a rate of 17 percent until May 2019. Following that, they stopped paying interest, for which the complainants favoured the complaints asserting deficiency in service to direct the Opposite Party to pay the the whole F.D. amount plus interest from the date of default payment. After being served with a notice, the opposing party did not appear before the District Commission and was thus placed ex-parte.  The District Commission issued an order finding a deficiency of service against the Opposite Party and ordered the Opposite Party to pay the above-mentioned sum with interest.

The appellant strongly contended that, despite being served with notice, the notice never reached the Management of the Opposite Party/company, and thus they were unable to represent the accusation. As a result, the non-representation before the District Commission was not deliberate, and the appellant requests that the ex-parte order issued against them be reversed. There was a 122-day delay in filing the appeal. The reason given in the application and affidavit was that after learning of the ex-parte order, the awarded amount had to be arranged, and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the hotel operations had come to a halt, and the company’s management was dedicated to saving the remaining operations. Only after operational stability was achieved could the company decide whether or not to choose the appeal. As a result, he asks for condoning for the delay in filing the appeal.\

The Commission held that, “The reasons averred in the application are not satisfactory. The appellant ought to have filed these appeals well within time. This Commission will not wait for the decision whether to prefer the appeal or not. The appeal has to be filed within 45 days from the date of order. Hence, the application is not acceptable and not fit to allow in the eye of law. Further, the reasons narrated for not appearing before the District Commission is also not satisfactory, because they admit that the notice was served on them but it was not reached the management of the Opposite Party/Company. Hence, they could not represent the complaint before the District Commission. Further, ongoing through the order passed by the District Commission, the notice was issued both physically and also through ‘e’ mail, but the Opposite Party have not appeared before the District Commission knowing fully that the complainant has filed a complaint. Hence, the reasons are not acceptable in the eye of law. There is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the district commission. Hence, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.”

Click Here to Read the Judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar