KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 62/2017

ORDER DATED: 31.10.2018

(Against the Order in C.C. No. 325/2015 of CDRF, Wayanad)

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN           : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY. A                                                  : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

The Branch Manager, Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Sultan Batheri, Wayanad District represented by its Regional Manager.

 (By Adv. K.N. Justin)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Anandavally, Meppurath House, Thoothilery-64, Athirattukunnu P.O-673 596 Kenichira-via, Sultan Bethery, Wayanad.

ORDER

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN  : PRESIDENT

This revision is directed against the Order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad, Kalpetta allowing an amendment application moved by the complainant for amending her complaint.  She filed the complaint to claim compensation from the opposite party bank for non-returning of a document which was furnished as security for a loan.  Resisting the claim opposite party contended that due to default in payment by the borrower the bank had instituted a suit for recovery of the amount due and later decree was passed in its favour.   All documents produced in the suit were destroyed by the court.  Eleven years after institution of the suit complainant filed the frivolous complaint claiming compensation was the case of opposite party bank.  Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ opposite party submits that previously an order was passed in the complaint exparte and on appeal filed by the bank it was set aside and the case was remitted for fresh disposal with direction to provide opportunity to bank to file its version.  On such remission bank filed version informing that the document produced as security for the loan was produced in suit and later destroyed after disposal of suit by civil court.  Complainant thereupon moved an application for amendment and that was resisted by the opposite party.  Lower forum allowed that application and challenge is against the order allowing the amendment. 

2.  Admitting the revision, notice was ordered to the respondent/complainant but no steps were taken by revision petitioner for service.  After looking into the materials, particularly, the Order passed by the forum we find no notice need be served to the respondent as the time required for service will only cause further delay of the proceedings.  We do not find any merit in the revision challenging the Order of the forum allowing the amendment sought for by the complainant.  Once an amendment sought is carried out, opposite party can file additional version.   The forum below shall provide opportunity to opposite party to file additional version, that in our view, would suffice the ends of justice. 

Subject to the observation made, revision is dismissed. 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT

jb                                                                                                                                                   BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER