Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/24/2022

The managing director - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.A.Ganesan - Opp.Party(s)

M.Arunachalam

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.24 of 2022

(Against the Order, dated 19.05.2022, passed in C.C. No.33 of 2021, on the file of  the DCDRC, Tiruppur)

                                                    

                                                     Orders, dated:05.09.2022

 

The Managing Director,

RBL Bank,

1st Lane, Shahupuri,

Kolhapur 416 001,

India.                         ... Revision Petitioner / Opposite Party

vs.

 

C.A.Ganesan,

S/o.C.N.Arumugam,

No.40A, Sreepalanindavar Nagar,

15, Velampalayam (Post),

Tiruppur 641 652.                ... Respondent/Complainant.

 

             For Rev. Petitioners  :  M/s.M.Arunachalam

 

     This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the revision petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                     This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 19.05.2022, passed by the DCDRC, Tiruppur, in C.C. No.33 of 2021, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/Opposite Party-Bank  ex parte and consequently, adjourned the Case to 06.06.2022 for filing proof affidavit by the complainant.

 

             2. Heard the submissions of the counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/Opposite Party-Bank.

              Since the revision filed by the OP/Bank is only against setting them ex parte by the District Commission in C.C. No.33 of 2021 that has not reached any finality, we feel that issuance of Notice to the other side can be dispensed with.  Moreover, when the Consumer Protection Act stipulates a period of 90 days for resolution of the complaints filed before the Consumer Commissions, keeping the Revision Petition filed by the OP pending will further delay the matter, particularly when the Bank seek to set aside the impugned order on the ground that they are based at Maharashtra, that there was a snap in receiving instructions from their counsels at Tamil Nadu and that the summons got mixed up with other records; as such, their non appearance before the District Commission was neither wilful nor wanton. Since the reasons assigned by the Bank seem to be bona fide and also, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

 

                     3. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 19.05.2022, passed in C.C. No.33 of 2021 by the DCDRC, Tiruppur, in setting the Revision Petitioners/OP ex party is recalled, and the          OP-Bank shall file their Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.33 of 2021 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law, for its early disposal.

 

 

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/SEPTEMBER/2022.