Delhi

North West

RA/28/2024

SANJU DEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-V, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Review Application No. RA/28/2024
( Date of Filing : 11 Oct 2024 )
In
Complaint Case No. CC/318/2017
 
1. SANJU DEVI
W/O SH.BHAVI CHAND SAINI R/O H.NO.1076,NAVAL PARK,ALIPUR,DELHI
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. BANK OF BARODA
75/138,NEHRU ENCLAVE,ALIPUR ,DELHI THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  NIPUR CHANDNA PRESIDING MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 21 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

ORDER

                                                      21.11.2024

 

  1. An application filed on behalf of applicant u/s 40 of CP Act 2019 for reviewing the order dated 15.07.2024. It is stated in the application that the Ld. Commission failed to consider that the OP duly participated in the proceedings, the OP counsel was present before this Hon’ble Commission  on each and every dated and never sought any adjournment on any pretext.
  2. It is further stated that on 19.10.2023 when the aforesaid case was listed for final arguments, the proxy counsel for OP wrongly noted the next date of hearing as 14.08.2024 instead of 15.07.2024 and hence, could not attend the court hearing on 15.07.2024, on that day the final judgment was pronounced. It is further stated that the OP has good case in its favor and only on the basis of one non appearance the Hon’ble Commission ought not proceed and decide the case without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.
  3. It is further stated that there is a grave error apparent on the face of order which needs to be/deserve to be reviewed, hence, this application.
  4. We have heard the arguments advance at the bar by the applicant counsel Ms. Anshu Priyanka and have perused the record.
  5. Before adverting to the disposal of the present application let us peruse the provision u/s 40 of CP Act, 2019

Section 40 Review by District Commission in certain cases.

The District Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Either of its own motion or an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.

  1. The applicant has forcefully averred in the application that the proxy counsel for OP has noted the next date of hearing as 14.08.2024 instead of 15.07.2024 and as such OP failed to address the final arguments. It is further forcefully contended that OP appeared before this Commission on each and every date and never took any adjournment under any pretext. It is further stated in the application that due to non appearance of OP counsel the defense of OP had not been considered by this Commission and as such the judgment dated 15.07.2024 passed having grave error apparent on its face which needs to be review.
  2. We have gone through the record and found that the present complaint case is on final arguments stage since 09.02.2023. On 09.02.2023 none appeared on behalf of OP as such matter adjourned to 09.08.2023 On 09.08.2023 none appeared on behalf of parties as such matter stands adjourned to 17.10.2023. On 17.10.2023 none appeared on behalf of complainant as such matter stands adjourned to 04.07.2024. On 04.07.2024 none appeared on behalf of OP as such on the request of complainant order reserved and was adjourned for 15.07.2024 for pronouncement of order. The order sheet placed on record clearly shows that the matter was never adjourned for final arguments on 15.07.2024 in fact it is for pronouncement of order, hence the content of the application in respect to the wrong noting of the date is completely false and baseless.

The entire order sheets placed on record clearly establish that since 09.02.2023 either none appeared on behalf of OP or any proxy counsel appeared. The main counsel never appeared before this Commission for addressing arguments.

  1. The OP/applicant has forcefully alleged in the application that while passing the judgment the Commission has not considered the defense of the OP, whereas perusal of the record shows that in the judgment dated 15.07.2024 this Commission has taken the note of written statement and evidence filed by OP and after considering the contention of the parties this Commission passed the award dated 15.07.2024.
  2. On the basis of above observation  and discussion we are of the considered opinion  that there is no error apparent on record in order dated 15.07.2024, therefore, review application is dismissed. Review application be consigned to record room.  

 

Sanjay Kumar                                           Nipur Chandna                       

               President                                                         Member     

 
 
[ NIPUR CHANDNA]
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.