Haryana

StateCommission

RP/115/2017

UCO BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR BOORA - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 Revision Petition No.115   of 2017

 Date of Institution:22.11.2017

  Date  of  Decision:30.01.2019

 

UCO Bank, Nahan Branch, Nahan (H P) through its Branch Manager.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Smt. Radhika Verma W/o Sh. Shiv Poojan Verma, R/o H.No.513-R, back side main market, Model Town, Karnal (HR).

2.      Shiv Poojan Verma S/oSh.Ram Kishor Verma aged about 35 years, R/o H.No.513-R, back side main market, Model Town, Karnal (HR).

3.      Punjab National Bank through its Manager, PNB Branch, Railway Road, Karnal (HR).

4.      State Bank of Patiala (now SBI) through its Sr. Manager, SBP Branch Sector 13, Urban Estate, Karnal (HR).

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial  Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.S.S. Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Gaurav Deep Goel, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

                   Mr.Virender Sood, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

                   Mr.Chhavi Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

 

                                                 ORDER

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  13.10.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal vide which  application of O.P.No.2-UCO Bank was dismissed.

2.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.S.S.Pathania, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Gaurav Deep Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. virender Sood, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Chhavi Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4. With their kind assistance the original file including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  parties before the learned District Forum had also been properly perused and examined.

3.      The only question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist was that a cheque was issued at Karnal had wrongly been delivered at  Moginand, Tehsil Nahan and inadvertently for taking all precautions, the amount should be released to a wrong person.  An admission has been made by way of making a request to the learned District Forum to implead the account holder maintaining the account at Solan, but, it has been declined by the learned District Forum vide order dated  13.10.2017.

4.      However, in the interest of justice and since the huge amount is involved in this case and infact the releasing of the amount of subject to the verification of the original account holder in whose favour the cheque was issued.   There will not be any unwarranted situation in case the account holder at Solan, where the amount has been deposited is allowed to be impleaded as a party, who is holding the account at UCO Bank, Moginand, Solan is allowed to be a party before the learned District Forum, Karnal.  In the interest of justice and equity, the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum  dated 13.10.2017 is set aside for all intents and purposes.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum, Karnal on  27.03.2019 for further proceedings.

 

 

January 30th, 2019                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                           Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.