Order No. 5 dated 30/1/2019

Today is fixed for S/R appearance and hearing the revision petition. The revisionist is present through Ld. Advocate and files a petition by which it is mentioned that as per direction of this Commission he has obtained the service details report of the OP from the concerned Post Master. The Post Master report attached with the petition, speaks that the OP Annyapura Bapar Private Limited has received notice of this revision through post on 31/12/2018. In spite of receiving notice, the OP does turn up. Accordingly, the revisional application is taken up for hearing in presence of Ld. Advocate of the revisionist. The revision petition is hereby heard.

The sum and substance of the revision petition is that the revisionist being OP of the CC case no. 63/s/2016 was contesting before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri and while the revisionist was refrained from filling the WV of that case, he preferred a revision before this Commission bearing no. RP/1/2018 which was allowed on 20/9/2018 and by order of this Commission dated 20/9/2018 Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri was requested to hear the argument of the case after accepting the amended written version already filed by the revisionist (OP). Thereafter the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri has allowed the revisionist to file the amended written version and fixed the date on 18/12/2018 for hearing argument. By this time the revision/OP by filing a petition prayed before the Ld. Forum to allow the revisionist/OP to submit examination in chief and fresh written note argument which was heard and rejected by the Ld. Forum. Being aggrieved with the said order, this revision follows on the ground that while the amended written version was accepted by the Forum, the forum had the opportunity to allow the revisionist to submit examination in chief in support of amended written version and to allow the revisionist to file the written note of argument. But intentionally the Ld. Forum had refused the said prayer which was arbitrary, and irregular one and for that reason the order under revision dated 5/10/2018 should be set aside.

After admission of the revision application, the notice was issued upon the Opposite Parties but no service return was there on the part of Postal Authority. So, the revisionist was asked to cause service notice upon the OP at their own instance and furnish the service details.

The revisionist has complied order of this commission by issuing fresh notice of revisionist upon the Op and obtained the postal report about the completion of service through post. The commission being satisfied with the service of notice upon the OP, given an opportunity of the OP to hear the revisional application, but the Opposite Party in spite of receiving the notice could not come to contest the revisional application. Therefore, the revisional application shall have to be disposed of on merit.

Decision with reasons.

The Consumer Case no. 63/S/2016 was filed by one Annyapurna Bapar Private Limited against the Bank of Boroda and its chief manager and Branch head as Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties/revisionist has contested the case by submitting written version which was subsequently amended, after obtaining the permission of the Ld. Forum. Thereafter the Ld. Forum had asked the revisionist/OP to submit the fresh amended written version within a stipulated date. The revisionist could not submit the amended written version within stipulated date and for that reason the revisionists were debarred from submitting the amended written version. So, the revisionist had filed a revisional application bearing no. RP/1/2018 before this Commission. With a prayer is to give an opportunity to the revisionist so that the amended written version ought to have been accepted by the Ld. Forum and to give opportunity of being heard in this case. The commission after hearing the case had requested Ld. Forum to accept the amended written version and to allow OP/Revisionist for hearing argument. During the course of pending the argument, the revisionist/OP wanted to submit the examination in chief in respect of their case but it was disallowed on the part of the Ld. Forum. We know very well that in a legal proceeding while the written version that is the written statement of a party is being accepted by the proceeding authority, Certainly, in respect of written version the party should get an opportunity of tendering evidences in support of their case. It is part and parcel of a judicial proceeding and one could not be debarred from adducing evidences in support their written version or written statement. Ld. Forum had the opportunity to allow the revisionist/OP to furnish the examination in chief and to allow the complainant of that case either to make cross-examination or to put questionnaire upon the revisionist, in respect of the evidences tendered before the Ld. Forum. But Ld. Forum through mistake or oversight has failed to understand the principle of judicial proceeding and systems of rendering administration of justice where both parties should get an opportunity to tender their evidences and also should get further opportunity to file written note of argument so that the decision-making authority shall adjudicate the dispute on the basis of pleadings, evidences and written note of arguments which are nothing but part and parcel of a judicial proceedings.

Therefore, the Commission thinks it fit to allow the revision and to give an opportunity to the revisionist to furnish the examination in chief before the Ld. Forum and to file written note of argument before adjudication of the dispute. Thus, the revisional application is hereby disposed of.

Hence,

It is ordered,

That the order no. 18 dated 5/10/2018 passed by Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri in C.C. no- 63/S/2016 is hereby set aside. Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri is hereby requested to allowed the revisionist to submit the examination in chief on next date and to file the written note of argument.

The Ld. Forum also is permitted to allow the complainant of that case to put questionnaire upon the revisionist/op or to make cross-examination of the OP if they deem fit and there after shall hear the argument and deliver final order.

The interim order stay passed by this Commission is hereby recalled.

A copy of this order be supplied to parties free of cost and a copy of this order be communicated to Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri by email.