NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1870/2012

AMARLAL P. ROHIRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

22 Mar 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1870 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 03/10/2011 in Appeal No. 1232/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. AMARLAL P. ROHIRA
Adult Indian Inhabitant, R/o 6-B Bhagwanti Niwas, Peddar Road,
Bambay - 400 026
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. BANK MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD.
Tirupati Apts Branch,Tirupati Apts Shop No-4A.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Mar 2013
ORDER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 03.10.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. A/10/1232 Amarlal P.Rohira Vs. Bank Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by learned District Forum dismissing complaint was confirmed. 2. None appeared for the petitioner and a letter of request has been sent by him stating that the petition may be decided on merits on the basis of pleadings on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with his brother Kishor Parsarar Rohira formed a partnership firm in the name of Smex Overseas and opened an account in OP/respondent-Bank. Partnership was dissolved on 31.3.2000, but OP was not informed for a period of 3 years, but it was informed that account will be operated by the complainant only instead of by both the partners as operating earlier. Later on, brother of the complainant intimated to the bank about dissolution of partnership and requested OP-Bank to stop operation of partnership account and accordingly bank stopped its operation. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint. OP contested complaint and learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by impugned order; hence, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Perusal of record reveals that it is a dispute between the partners of the firm regarding settlement of account and complainant has unnecessarily dragged OP in litigation. Learned State Commission rightly observed that appropriate way for settling the dispute between the partners to file suit and get the accounts settled and filing of consumer complaint is malafide. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order which calls for any interference and learned State Commission has rightly dismissed appeal with cost. 5. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.

 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER

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.