Delhi

StateCommission

FA/13/384

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMARJEET TAIWAL - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :15.10.2015

FA No. 384/2013.

(Arising out of order dated 14.01.2013 passed in Complaint Case No.780/2009 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Janak Puri, New Delhi)

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi.

 

Through Asstt. General Manager

……Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

Amarjeet Taiwal,

R/o 522, Pocket-6,

Sector-2, Rohini,

Delhi.

 

Also at:

66, Pocket-12, Sector-20,

Rohini, Delhi-110086.

•  

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member(Judicial)

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the “Act”) against the order dated 14.1.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(West), Janak Puri, New Delhi (in short the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.780/2009.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

                The respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that he had deposited a cheque bearing No.150266 dated 5.9.2008 for Rs.3 lacs drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Piyarli, Shimla.  It was alleged that the appellant/OP had misplaced the aforesaid cheque.  It was alleged that he had been visiting the appellant bank regularly for knowing the status of the cheque but the bank officials were not helping him in any manner and rather deducted a sum of Rs.1,050/- towards BPL charges from his account in respect of the aforesaid cheque.  It was alleged that the appellant/OP had misappropriated the cheque of respondent/complainant. It was alleged that the appellant bank did not protect the interest of the respondent/complainant by not clearing the cheque.  A legal notice was also sent to the appellant.  Ultimately the respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the bank for the reimbursement of the sum of Rs.3 lacs along with interest @ 24% per annum and also for payment of compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs.

3. Perusal of impugned order shows that Shri R.K. Ranjan, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant bank whereby a copy of the complaint was supplied to him.  The said advocate sought time for filing reply but on the next date, none appeared for the appellant and appellant was proceeded ex-parte.  The respondent/complainant gave his own affidavit in support of the allegations, on the basis of which impugned order was passed whereby the appellant bank had been directed to credit Rs.3 lacs in the account of the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization of the awarded amount and Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards compensation.
4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid ex-parte judgement, present appeal is filed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the bank had engaged a panel lawyer, namely, Shri R.K. Ranjan who had appeared on one date of hearing.  Thereafter the said Counsel did not appear and also did not inform about the progress of the case to the appellant bank, as a result of which the appellant bank was proceeded ex-parte.  It is stated that there is no fault on the part of the appellant bank as the bank had done everything by engaging a Counsel and also giving relevant papers to him.  It is submitted that the bank be not allowed to suffer for lapse on the part of the Counsel.  It is further contended that immediately on coming to know that the ex-parte judgement has been passed, the present appeal is filed.  It is submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to respondent/complainant in case the ex-parte judgement is set aside as the respondent/complainant would get full chance to substantiate his case before the Ld. District Forum.  On the other hand, a great prejudice shall be caused to appellant bank if the impugned order is not set aside as the appellant bank will not get a chance to contest the case on merits.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant initially opposed the present appeal.  However, after some arguments, Ld. Counsel has stated that respondent/complainant has no objection if the appellant/OP be given chance to contest the case on merits.  However, Ld. Counsel for respondent/complainant states that costs be imposed upon appellant bank as delay has been caused in the matter.
7. We have considered the submissions made. 
8. The stand of the appellant/OP on merits is that the respondent/complainant had misrepresented before the District Forum.  It is stated that the appellant bank had given the reply to the legal notice of respondent/complainant wherein it is stated that the cheque was returned unpaid on 18.11.08 and after receiving the unpaid cheque, the same was returned to the respondent/complainant at the address mentioned in the record of the appellant bank.  It is submitted that the said reply was  not intentionally filed by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum.  It is further alleged that no evidence is led by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum that cheque of Rs.3 lacs was encashed. It is submitted that there is no deficiency on the part of the bank in not realizing the amount.
9. Considering the reasoning given for non-appearance and considering the stand of the appellant bank on merits of the case and also no objection given by the respondent/complainant and also for effective disposal of the case on merits, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgement of District Forum subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-.
10. The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 9.12.15.  On the said date, the appellant shall pay the costs to the respondent/complainant and shall file its written statement.  Thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
11. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case and the Ld. District Forum shall be free to decide the case as per the material produced before it.
12. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.  
13. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

                                                                              (Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member(Judicial)

 

       

sa