Diwan Chand Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank Asset Management Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113239
CourtDelhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided OnFeb-12-2001
Case NumberAppeal No. A-375 of 2001
JudgeLOKESHWAR PRASAD, PRESIDENT & MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
AppellantDiwan Chand Malhotra
RespondentPunjab National Bank Asset Management Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 15 - comparative citations: 2002 (2) cpr 326, 2002 (2) clt 663, 2002 (1) cpj 145lokeshwar prasad, president: 1. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the act), is directed against order dated 3.12.1999, passed by district forum no. vi, in complaint case no. tc-956/1998 — entitled shri diwan chand malhotra v. the punjab national bank mutual fund. 2. the facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under section 12 of the act before the district forum, averring that the appellant had purchased 350 units worth rs. 35,000/- of regular income plus scheme 1990 (rips 90), floated by punjab national bank mutual fund which the appellant got redeemed on 1.9.1996. it was stated, in the complaint, that after redemption of the units in 1996, the appellant came across a news item which was published in the daily, the hindustan times dated 12.5.1995, in which, it was stated that punjab national bank mutual fund was to pay higher dividends in the tax savings schemes for the financial year 1994-95 and that the dividend declared was 35% on the rips 1990 scheme. it was further stated that on reading the above mentioned news item, the appellant took up the matter with the respondent claiming the amount of dividend on the above rate i.e. 35% and on that basis vide letter dated 20.10.1995 claimed balance amount of rs. 3,500/-. it was stated by the appellant that the respondent promptly replied vide their letter dated 26.10.1995 but the relief was not given to him and, therefore, the appellant got served a legal notice dated 26.11.1996. as the relief, prayed for by the appellant, was not given to him, the appellant filed the complaint under section 12 of the act, before the district forum, praying for the payment of rs. 3,500/- on account of balance dividend. the appellant also claimed compensation of rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and another sum of rs. 5,000/- on account of cost of litigation. in the district forum, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte. 3. the learned district forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant. 4. feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 15 of the act before this commission, which has been received in the registry of this commission by post on 29.1.2001. 5. we have carefully gone through the memorandum and grounds of appeal and the other material placed on record. on a perusal of material on record, it is apparent that the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned district forum on 3.12.1999. in terms of the provisions contained in section 15 of the act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. however, proviso to the above section provides that the state commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within the above said period. the words ‘sufficient cause, occurring in proviso to section 15 of the act are of utmost significance. as per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ‘sufficient cause, though deserves to reecive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ‘sufficient cause in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the court within time is ‘sufficient cause. in doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied. 6. admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days. the same has been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation on 5.8.2000 and was received in the registry of this commission by dak on 29.1.2001. the appellant along with the appeal has not filed any application explaining the causes for not filing the appeal in time. even in the memorandum of appeal, no explanation has been furnished by the appellant for not filing the appeal in time. in the presence of the above facts, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is hopelessly barred by limitation. 7. the present appeal, filed by the appellant, as already stated, besides being barred by limitation, is also devoid of substance on merits because on the basis of material on record, it is apparent that the complaint of the appellant, filed by him, before the district forum, was based on a news item which had appeared in the daily, the hindustan times. on a perusal of material on record, it is apparent that in reply to appellants letter dated 20.10.1995, the respondent vide letter dated 26.10.1995 stated in clear-cut terms that financial year for regular income plus scheme 1990 ended on 31st august every year and dividend for rips, 1990 is declared in september every year and as such, the information published in the news item related to the period 1993-94 and not for the financial year 1994-95. the respondent along with the letter also enclosed a photocopy of news item published subsequently on 29.9.1995, wherein it was specifically stated that dividend in respect of rips, 1990 for the year 1994-95 was 25%. similar was the stand of the respondent in its reply to legal notice dated 26.11.1996. in the presence of the above facts, on merits, it cannot be stated that the order being impugned in the present appeal suffers from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this commission in exercise of its appellate powers. thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. the same merits dismissal. accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Lokeshwar Prasad, President:

1. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), is directed against order dated 3.12.1999, passed by District Forum No. VI, in Complaint Case No. TC-956/1998 — entitled Shri Diwan Chand Malhotra v. The Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund.

2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had purchased 350 units worth Rs. 35,000/- of Regular Income Plus Scheme 1990 (RIPS 90), floated by Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund which the appellant got redeemed on 1.9.1996. It was stated, in the complaint, that after redemption of the units in 1996, the appellant came across a news item which was published in the daily, The Hindustan Times dated 12.5.1995, in which, it was stated that Punjab National Bank Mutual Fund was to pay higher dividends in the tax savings schemes for the financial year 1994-95 and that the dividend declared was 35% on the RIPS 1990 Scheme. It was further stated that on reading the above mentioned news item, the appellant took up the matter with the respondent claiming the amount of dividend on the above rate i.e. 35% and on that basis vide letter dated 20.10.1995 claimed balance amount of Rs. 3,500/-. It was stated by the appellant that the respondent promptly replied vide their letter dated 26.10.1995 but the relief was not given to him and, therefore, the appellant got served a legal notice dated 26.11.1996. As the relief, prayed for by the appellant, was not given to him, the appellant filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act, before the District Forum, praying for the payment of Rs. 3,500/- on account of balance dividend. The appellant also claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of cost of litigation. In the District Forum, the respondent was proceeded ex-parte.

3. The learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and on the above ground has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Act before this Commission, which has been received in the Registry of this Commission by post on 29.1.2001.

5. We have carefully gone through the memorandum and grounds of appeal and the other material placed on record. On a perusal of material on record, it is apparent that the order, being impugned in the present proceedings, was passed by the learned District Forum on 3.12.1999. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Act, the present appeal should have been filed within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. However, proviso to the above section provides that the State Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of the above said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that there was ‘sufficient cause for not filing the same within the above said period. The words ‘sufficient cause, occurring in proviso to Section 15 of the Act are of utmost significance. As per settled law, culled out from various judicial decisions, the above expression ‘sufficient cause, though deserves to reecive a liberal construction, yet, a just and equitable balance has to be maintained between the right secured by the respondent as a result of the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the injustice of depriving the appellant of adjudication of his grievances on the merits of his appeal for causes beyond his reasonable control, which means the cause is bona fide and beyond the control of the appellant. Though no hard and fast line can be drawn as to what affords ‘sufficient cause in a given case, yet, again as per settled law, any cause which prevents a person from approaching the Court within time is ‘sufficient cause. In doing so, it is the test of a reasonable man in normal circumstances which has to be applied.

6. Admittedly, the present appeal has not been filed by the appellant within the prescribed period of 30 days. The same has been filed much after the prescribed period of limitation on 5.8.2000 and was received in the Registry of this Commission by dak on 29.1.2001. The appellant along with the appeal has not filed any application explaining the causes for not filing the appeal in time. Even in the memorandum of appeal, no explanation has been furnished by the appellant for not filing the appeal in time. In the presence of the above facts, the present appeal, filed by the appellant is hopelessly barred by limitation.

7. The present appeal, filed by the appellant, as already stated, besides being barred by limitation, is also devoid of substance on merits because on the basis of material on record, it is apparent that the complaint of the appellant, filed by him, before the District Forum, was based on a news item which had appeared in the daily, The Hindustan Times. On a perusal of material on record, it is apparent that in reply to appellants letter dated 20.10.1995, the respondent vide letter dated 26.10.1995 stated in clear-cut terms that financial year for Regular Income Plus Scheme 1990 ended on 31st August every year and dividend for RIPS, 1990 is declared in September every year and as such, the information published in the news item related to the period 1993-94 and not for the financial year 1994-95. The respondent along with the letter also enclosed a photocopy of news item published subsequently on 29.9.1995, wherein it was specifically stated that dividend in respect of RIPS, 1990 for the year 1994-95 was 25%. Similar was the stand of the respondent in its reply to legal notice dated 26.11.1996. In the presence of the above facts, on merits, it cannot be stated that the order being impugned in the present appeal suffers from any infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its appellate powers.

Thus, viewed from all angles, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is devoid of substance. The same merits dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.