Delhi

StateCommission

RP/60/2018

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABHISHEK KULSHRESTHA - Opp.Party(s)

14 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Revision Petition No.60/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 20.12.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.236/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II) New Delhi)

 

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank & Anr.                                                 … Petitioners

 

Versus

 

Shri Abhishek Kulshrestha                                                     … Respondent

 

 

BEFORE:

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

For the Petitioner:	Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner.
For the Respondent	None

 

 

Dated: 14^th May, 2018

 

ORDER

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

                 By way of this revision petition prayer is made for recalling of the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II) in CC No.236/2017 by which the petitioner/OP has been proceeded ex-parte.

                 Aforesaid order reads as under:

 

“Pr. complainant in person.

None for OP.

 

Complainant has filed photographs showing OP’s office at the given address. OP proceeded ex-parte.  Come up for ex-parte evidence on 05.03.18.”

 

                 It is stated that copy of the notice of complaint was served at Noida address of the petitioner/OP and due to inadvertence, officials of petitioner/OP instructed two law firms, namely, M/s. Sethi & Associates and Mr. Mayank Mahajan, advocate to appear in the matter. It is stated that on 20.12.2017 Mr. Sandeep Dharaiwal, advocate from the office of M/s. Sethi & Associates appeared in the matter and sought time to file vakalatnama and further requested for supply of copy of the complainant. However, copy of complaint was not supplied and matter was adjourned for 05.03.2018. It is stated that on 05.03.2018, the counsel for the petitioner appeared with vakalatnama, however, he came to know that petitioner/OP was proceeded ex-parte on 20.12.2017. It is stated that impugned order has serious consequence on petitioner if the same is not set aside. It is stated that the petitioner shall be precluded from contesting the case on merits.

                 No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite being served.                

                 We have gone through the reasoning given for non-appearance as well as accompanying affidavit. Keeping in mind the prejudice being cause to the petitioner by not setting aside the impugned order, we accept this petition and set aside the impugned order subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- to the respondents/ complainants.

                 The matter is listed before the District Forum on 18.05.2018. On the said date the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.7,000/- to the respondents/complainants and shall also filed its written statement. Thereafter, District Forum shall proceed further in accordance with law.

                 File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member