IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be presumption of condonation of delay.

V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member—This appeal and the application for condonation of delay are being decided together in as much as though the appeal is filed after delay of 101 days yet without any specific order on delay condonation application, the appeal was admitted.

2. The appeal arises out of the judgement and order rendered by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case no. C-242/96. The State Commission allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to refund proportionate depreciated amount @5% per year as contributed by the respondent being price of the vehicle and lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- including cost.

3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant financed amount of Rs. 4,85,351/- to the respondent for the purchase of a Tata truck vehicle. The loan amount was to be paid in 35 monthly instalments. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was irregular in making payments. The vehicle was repossessed by the appellant on 25.5.93 due to the defaults committed by the respondent. The respondent, however, submitted an undertaking that he would be regular in making payments of further instalments. The truck vehicle was released in his favour on 16.06.93 on the basis of such assurance and on his making of certain payments. The respondent continued to pay certain instalments further yet was found in arrears. The appellant, therefore, again repossessed the truck vehicle on 21.11.1993. The vehicle was subsequently sold away by the appellant in public auction for Rs. 1,90,000/-.

4. The respondent (complainant) approached the State Commission by filing the complaint alleging that the amount of Rs.2,38,177/- paid by him towards the instalments was not refunded by the appellant. He further alleged that the finance was made available to him only for purchasing of the chassis of the truck and that he incurred expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for body building, electrification and painting work. He averred that he lost business and suffered mental agony due to the repossession of the truck vehicle by the appellant without giving him due notice for such purpose. He, therefore, claimed the refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest @24% p.a., the amount of expenditure incurred by him for body building and other work and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of business, inconvenience and mental agony.

5. The appellant did not participate in the proceedings by filing written reply. The case of the appellant, as is projected through the appeal memo, is that the respondent was not a consumer qua the appellant. The contractual relationship between parties was ignored by the State Commission. For, the ownership rights of the vehicle remained with the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to repossess the vehicle in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The impugned judgement and order does not show application of judicial mind because vague directions are given. The hire-purchase agreement dated 31.08.1992 is not properly construed by the State Commission and, therefore, the reliefs granted by the State Commission are improper, vague and unsustainable.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. There is delay of 101 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has moved application for condonation of delay. It is true that by order dated 09.11.2006, the appeal came to be admitted. Still, however, there is no specific order regarding condonation of the delay. In fact, in the order dated 09.11.2006 there is no reference to the delay condonation application. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel submits that when the appeal is admitted, it may be presumed that the delay was condoned. We do not find any merit in such contention. There cannot be presumption of condonation of delay in as much as it is the matter to be considered in the light of section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I