This Commission will not wait for the decision whether to prefer the appeal or not, it has to be filed 45 days from the date of order: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE First Appeal No. A 738 2021 Date of Filing : 27 Sep 2021 Arisen out of Order Dated 08 02 2021 in Case No. CC 572 2020 of District Bangalore 1st 1. Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt Ltd No.72 73 5th cross 5th Main Opp Gopalpura Bus Stop Cmall Scale Industries Corporation Rajajinagar Bengaluru 560010. Reptd by its Managing Director 1. Smt Varsha Sharma W o P P Sharma Aged 72 yrs No.340 AMS Layout 2nd stage 3rd cross Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru 560097. ...........Respondent(s HON BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER Dated : 09 Nov 2021 Final Order Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 SRI RAVI SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI LADY MEMBER 1 APPEAL NOS. 738 2015 & 739 2015 Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt. Ltd. No.72 73 5 Cross 5 Main Opp. Gopalpura Bus Stop Cmall Scale Industries Corporation Rajajinagar Bangaluru 560 010 Reptd. by its Managing Director By Shri Smt. H.S.Chandramouli Adv. Versus Smt. Varsha Sharma W o P.P. Sharma Aged 72 years No.340 AMS Layout 2 Stage Cross Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru 560 097 P.P. Sharma S o Late Devraj A a 79 years No.340 AMS Layout ….….Appellant is same in both the appeals Respondent in appeal No.738 2021 2 Stage 3 Cross Vidyaranyapura Bengaluru 560 097 Respondent in appeal No.739 2021 BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellants in both the appeals have preferred these appeals against the order passed by the District Commission which directed them to pay F.D. amount of Rs.7 90 000 and Rs.5 10 000 respectively together with interest @ 17% p.a. from 24.06.2019 till payment along with Rs.5 000 towards damages and Rs.5 000 towards litigation expenses 2. The appellants are the same and the facts involved in both these cases are same. Hence both these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Party respectively as per their rankings before the District Forum The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainants have deposited Rs.7 90 000 and Rs.5 10 000 respectively in the Opposite Party company for the assured interest @ 17% per year which is payable every year. After deposit the appellants complainants have issued deposit receipt and also paid interest @ 17% till may 2019. There afterwards they stopped paying the interest for which the complainants preferred the complaints alleging deficiency in service with prayer to direct the Opposite Party to pay the entire F.D. amount along with interest from the date of payment of default. After notice the Opposite Party not appeared before the District Commission hence placed Ex parte. The District Commission after considering the documents produced by the complainants passed an order holding that there is a deficiency of service against the Opposite Party and directed the Opposite Party to pay the amount with interest as above 6. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants Opposite Party is before this Commission on various grounds 7. Heard arguments on admission. 8. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that though notice was served on them the notice never reached the Management of the Opposite Party company and therefore they could not represent the complaint. Hence non representation before the District Commission was not intentional and therefore prays to set aside the ex parte order passed against them. 3 9. Further we noticed that there is a delay of 122 days in filing this appeal and on noticing the application filed by the appellant the reason given in the application and affidavit that on knowing the ex parte order passed against them the awarded amount had to be arranged and due to the Covid 19 pandemic the hotel operations had come to a standstill and the management of the company were committed to salvaging the remaining operations. Only once an operational stability was attained the company could arrive at a decision to prefer the appeal. Hence prays to condone the delay in filing the appeal 10. 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 admits 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 on going 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. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: Both the appeals are dismissed. No costs The amount deposited in both these appeals shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the Respondent complainant respectively The original of this order shall be kept in appeal No.738 2021 and a copy thereof shall be kept in appeal No.739 2021 Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission Sd Sd Lady Member. Judicial Member HON BLE MR. Ravishankar HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi 4 5 

Summary: 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.”