SHILPI LEASING AND FINANCE (REGD.) AND ORS. Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 29.10.1997 passed by the learned DCDRF, Badaun in complaint case No. 99 of 1997, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind, on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of justice, otherwise the appellants will suffer irreparable loss. From perusal of the records, it transpires that registered notice was sent to the respondent Sri Sudhir Kumar Rastogi in time but he did not put his appearance till 30.1.2015. Since the appeal was pending for more than 16 years for disposal, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 8(6) of the U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 30(2) of the Act, 68 of 1986, we preferred to decide the appeal on the basis of evidence available on record.

(2.) THE appellants did not appear before the Forum below. They refused to receive the notice even. Consequently, the case proceeded ex parte against them and the Forum below directed them to pay jointly and severally to the respondent a sum of Rs. 15,000.00 with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of investment i.e. 1.4.1996 till full and final payment. The Forum also awarded a sum of Rs. 500.00 only towards compensation.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this judgment dated 29.10.1997, the instant appeal was filed on 23.8.1999. Thus, it is barred by limitation and admittedly, the appellants have not paid the decretal amount to the respondent till the date of arguments.