Delhi

StateCommission

A/626/2014

UNION BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANKU RAM & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. A/626/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 28/05/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/116/2014 of District East Delhi)
 
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA
ANAND VIHAR, DELHI.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. BANKU RAM & ANR.
HOUSE No.31, POCKET H-4, SEC-16, ROHINI, DELHI-85.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

 

                      Date of Decision:  1.8.2014

FA-626/2014

 

 

Union Bank of India

Through  its Manager,

Anand Vihar, Delhi

 

 

     .........Appellant

VS

 

 

 

Banku Ram,

W/o Sh. Virender Kumar

House No.31, Pocket H-4,

Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-85

 

Central Bank of India

Through its Manager

Savita Vihar, Delhi-92

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

………...Respondents       

 

 

CORAM

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

 

1.     In a complaint case bearing No.116/2014 titled as  Banku Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors pending before District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, Opposite Parte No.2 (in short OP) had not put his appearance before the District Forum on 28.5..2014, hence the OP was ordered to be proceeded ex-party.

2.        In the present appeal before this Commission, OP /Appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 28.5.2014 passed by the District Forum

3.         We have heard Shri Rajiv Sagar, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself

4.         The version of the appellant/OP No.2 for non-appearance on 28.5.2014 in the case before the Forum is that the counsel who was defending his case before the Forum inadvertently jotted down incorrect date of hearing and the case was proceeded ex-parte against him due to non appearance.

5.         We do not find any reason or not believing the version of the appellant/OP. Policy of law is not to stifle a contest.  In such circumstances, a lenient view is required to be taken so as to allow the OP No.2 to contest the case.  Order dated 28.5.2014 passed by the District Forum against the appellant/OP No.2 is set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- which the OP will pay to the complainant on the next date, with the direction to the District Forum that they will allow the appellant/OP N o.2 to file the WS and evidence and decide the case after hearing both the parties.  The appellant/OP No.2 is directed to appear, through his counsel, before the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in this case on the date fixed.

6.         Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
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.