NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1527/2010

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVINASH NILKANTH LUKTUKE - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. S.N. GUPTA

17 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1527 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 07/01/2010 in Appeal No. 640/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. HDFC BANK LTD.640, Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Chowk, Sangli Miraj RoadSangliMaharsashtra ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. AVINASH NILKANTH LUKTUKER/o. 10, Arya Apartments, 591/B/1, GarvebhagSangliMaharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 17 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Challenge in this revision by the petitioner/opposite party-Bank is to the order dated 7.1.2010 of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai declining to condone 161 days in filing appeal and dismissing the appeal as time barred. Copy of the condonation application is at page Nos. 46 to 48. Explanation for the delay in question has been given in para 2 of the application which is reproduced below:- “The Appellant states that the impugned order though passed on 17th November, 2007, the certified copy thereof was received by the Bank Officer only on 21st November, 2007 at Sangali. The Appellant further submits that in transit, the Original copy of the Order dated 17th November, 2007 was misplaced. As the Appellant can not proceed on the basis of Xerox copy, the Appellant had to make fresh application for Certified copy of the order dated 17th November, 2008, which the Appellant received on 4th April, 2008. The Appellant submits that all the Legal matters pertaining to that region are handled by the Appellants branch at Pune, i.e. HDFC Bank Ltd. The Appellant further states that the Advocate for the Appellant had sent the order copy to the branch at Sangali. The order copy was then forwarded to the legal department at Pune, who was handling the said case. The Appellant states that the authorized officer, who was attending the matter before the District Forum also did not get the copy of the impugned order because the said impugned order had reached some other department of the Appellant, as soon as it came to his knowledge of the impugned papers he informed the higher officials of the bank and upon the instructions sent the papers to the Mumbai legal department of the Appellants for filing the appeal.” It may be stated that in the said para it has not been disclosed whether certified copy of the order which was received by the petitioner Bank on 21.11.2007 was sent through post office or by courier; when did the Bank came to know of the misplacement of that certified order and when did it apply for the certified copy of the order again. Also having considered the reasons given by the State Commission in the order, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error therein warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER