KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal under section 41 of the CP Act, 2019 preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20/12/2021, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, West Bengal in Consumer Case No. 06 of 2020.

Brief facts of appellant case are that, the respondent/complainant was an account holder of the appellant bank with the account no. being 2322787065. On 06/03/2017, the respondent/complainant had deposited Rs. 16,000/- (Sixteen thousand) only in the above account, against proper deposit slip and the appellant bank authority had issued, counter foil with proper seal and signature, for the above deposit. After some days, when the respondent/complainant visited the appellant bank with a view to update his passbook, found, that the amount of Rs. 16,000/- (Sixteen thousand) only, deposited on 06/03/2017 was not printed in the passbook. The respondent/complainant informed the matter to the persons of the appellant bank, who assured to look in to the matter. On several occasion the respondent/complainant visited the appellant bank, for getting his money and also submitted written prayer, but the appellant refused to receive or solve the problem. Since the very beginning, the appellant had adopted dilatory tactics, to return the amount deposited by the respondent/complainant. Till the date of filing the complaint, the appellant failed to resolve the dispute. Finally, the respondent/complainant submitted his prayer in writing, by sending the same through registered post, on 05/11/2019, vide postal receipt No. RW267168604N. Thereafter, also on different occasions, the respondent/complainant visited the office of the appellant, but with no result. Finally, the respondent/complainant   filed a complaint before the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur.

The appellant appeared to contest the case, but could not file the written version in time, following which, the case was taken up for ex-parte hearing.

After taking necessary evidence of behalf of the respondent/complainant, the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, decided the matter ex-parte, by passing the impugned judgment, as the OP failed to deposit the WV, as directed.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed the instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, passed the impugned order despite the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA 21/2022, MA 665/2021, Suo Motu writ petition (c) no. 3 of 2020 with MA 29/2022, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation from 15/03/2020, till 28/02/2022.

Decision with reasons

At the time of final hearing, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted, that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, proper steps could not be taken for filing the WV, before the Ld. Commission below, for which reason, the Ld. Commission had passed the impugned order ex-parte.  He had also submitted, that the merit of the case also, was not on strong footing as the respondent/complainant had filed a case, after elapse of about three years and therefore, the limitation had expired. That apart, the counter foil of the pay-in-slip was of Hili Branch ( Aptaur), whereas, the appellant did not have any such branch and the only branch of the appellant, was located at Hili bus stand. Moreover, the seal used, was not the type of seal used at cash counter, but generally used at the correspondence section of the bank. In view of such anomaly, he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

None appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant   and therefore, the matter was taken up for disposal on ex-parte basis.

After going through the material on the record, and the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as the judgment relied on by him, it transpires that in the light of mandate passed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in MA/21/2022, MA/665/2021 and Suo-Motu Writ petition (C ) No. 3/2020, along with the order No. 7 of 2022 dated 14/01/2022 passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC,  the computation  of delay in matters in which limitation expires between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022 would be further extended by 90 days from 01/03/2022 till 29/05/2022.

In the instant case also, the impugned order was passed on 20/12/2021, following the rejection order No. 10 dated 02/12/2020, by the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, which actually falls within the period prescribed, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for extension of the limitation. Hence, the impugned order was therefore, passed in violation of the above directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in order to up hold the majesty of the judicial decorum, the impugned order needs to be interfered   by setting aside the same. However, this Commission makes it clear, that no observations have been made with regard to the facts and merits of the case, otherwise.

As a result, the instant appeal succeeds,

It, is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte, but without cost.

The impugned order dated 20/12/2021 is hereby set aside, with the directions to rehear the case, by allowing opportunities to both the sides, from the stage of filing written version to the present appellants, to the submission of evidence and their documents to both the sides, in support of their respective cases.

Copy of the order be handed over to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Dakshin Dinajpur, for necessary compliance.