FA.462/2013 against C.C .No.140/2010, Dist. Forum-II,Hyderabad.

Between:

Kolluru Satish, S/o.Perayya Sastry,

Aged about 37 years, Occ:Pvt. Employee,

R/o.MIG – 171, Bharathnagar,

Hyderabad,

Presently residing at

G-2, Sai Krishna Apts.,

Kukatpalli, KPHB,

Hyderabad – 500 072.                                  …Appellant/

                                                                 Complainant

     And

1.The Officer,

    Debt Management,

    HDFC Bank Cards Division,

    Ceebros  Building,

    No.110, Nelson Manickyam Road,

    Aminjikarai, Mumbai – 600 029.

2. The Regional Manager,

     HDFC Bank Credit Cards Division,

     Plot No.D-24, Ranigunj,

     Secunderabad.                                       … Respondents/

                                                                   Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant     :   M/s.V.Gowrisankara Rao  

Counsel for the Respondents :   Lotus Law Associates.   

QUORUM:SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,HON’BLE INCHARGE  PRSIDENT,

                             SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                   AND

                            SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

               MONDAY, THE    TWENTY FIFTH   DAY OF   NOVEMBER,      

                               TWO THOUSAND  THIRTEEN .

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)           

                                          ***

                This appeal is directed against the order dt.26.02.2013 of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.140/2010.  

The appellant/complainant filed C.C.No.140/2010  which was pending on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad. The respondents/opp.parties filed  their written version opposing the claim of the complainant. Both  sides  adduced their respective evidence and upon hearing the counsel for both sides and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum  dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant is at liberty to approach  appropriate Forum for redressal. 

Aggrieved by the said order, the  complainant  preferred the appeal in F.A.No.759/2011. The Additional Bench of this Commission, after hearing   both parties, allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum  and  remitted the matter to the District Forum-II, Hyderabad for fresh disposal, according to law, after giving opportunity to both sides.  This Commission further directed that the parties shall appear before the District Forum–II, Hyderabad on 14.12.2012,  without insisting  for  any fresh notice.

Subsequently, the District Forum passed the following docket order:

“Complainant     is called absent. As per the orders of the  A.P.State Commission, the party shall appear before the District Forum, Hyderabad  on 14.2.2013 without  insisting for any fresh notices. The   order was  passed on 30^th  November, 2012. This order is received to this Forum on 10.1.2013  after the date fixed by the State Commission for appearance of the parties. This Forum issued notices to the complainant and the notice was returned stating that the “party left”. No purpose will be served even if notice is again issued to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint  is   dismissed without costs”.

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/complainant preferred the above appeal questioning the validity and legality of the order. 

We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

Now the point for consideration is whether there is any  misappreciation of fact or law    in  the impugned order passed  by the District Forum?

This Commission disposed of the F.A.No.759/2011 by passing an order dt.23.11.2012, remanding the matter  to the District Forum,   for fresh disposal,  according to law, after giving opportunity to both the parties  and also directed that the parties  shall appear before the District Forum II Hyderabad on 14.12.2012.  Admittedly, the parties did not appear before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad on 14.12.2012 and the copy of the order was received in the office of the District Forum–II, Hyderabad on 10.01.2013 and the order was despatched  from the office of the Commission on 03.01.2013 i.e. after expiry of 14.12.2012.  From this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant it is evident   that the  District Forum record was also not sent back by the State Commission to the District Forum before  14.12.2012.  It is the contention of the appellant/complainant that  he has not received any notice from the District Forum  directing the complainant to appear on 14.12.2013.

In view of the above facts and circumstances and to meet the principles of natural justice  by giving opportunity  to the complainant to prosecute the complaint  filed by him, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. The District Forum-II, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the complaint afresh, according to law, after giving opportunity to  both sides. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 13.12.2013, without insisting for fresh notice. No order as to costs.

                                                INCHARGE PRESIDENT

                                                       MEMBER

                                                        MEMBER

Pm*                                               Dt. 25.11.2013