STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(APPEAL NO.174 OF 2010)

                                                                   Date of Institution: 23.04.2010

                                                                   Date of Decision:   22.12.2010

Sh. Sanjay Mittal son of Sh. Roshan Lal Mittal resident of House No.1123 (First Floor), Sector 18-C, Chandigarh.

……Appellant.

Versus

Citi Bank, Citi Bank Card Division through its Manager, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Cannaught Circus New Delhi – 110 001.

              ....Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT

                        MRS.  NEENA  SANDHU,  MEMBER.

Argued by:   Sh. Dharam Chand  Mittal, Advocate for the appellant.

                         Sh. Amiteshwar Singh, Advocate for the  respondent.

JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        When this file was taken up one of the Hon’ble Member Sh.Jagroop Singh Mahal abstained himself from hearing in the matter as he was the signatory to the impugned order.

                        This appeal by complainant is against the order dated 19.3.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter for short to be referred as District Forum) whereby his complaint was dismissed mainly on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as M/s Rana Communications was not arrayed as a party.

                        After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the material placed on file, we without going into any further details feel that in this case, a transaction of purchase is alleged to have been conducted on 26.3.2008 by the complainant with M/s Rana Communications. According to the complainant, the credit card was swapped at the premises of M/s Rana Communications but the same did not work. Inspite of that, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was claimed from the complainant by the OP – Citi Bank.

                        On the other hand, the stand of learned counsel for the OP is that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was in fact paid to M/s Rana Communications from whom the complainant is alleged to have purchased some articles by swapping his credit card. There is nothing on record, which could show that any transaction had actually taken place as alleged by the complainant and at the same time, there is also no evidence or any material on file, which could show that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the Citi Bank. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that in order to find out the truth, M/s Rana Communications was a necessary party to be impleaded for obtaining its stand in the matter in issue between the parties. Thus, taking an overall view and in the interest of justice, we feel that the matter requires to be adjudicated upon after obtaining the reply of M/s Rana Communications. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. This matter is remitted back to the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh to adjudicate upon the matter afresh after  allowing M/s Rana Communications to be arrayed as OP No.2 and then giving the parties an opportunity to adduce their respective evidence in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before learned District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 18.1.2011. Record of complaint case be sent back to the concerned District Forum well before the date fixed i.e. 18.1.2011.

                        Copies of this order be also sent to the parties free of costs.

Announced in open Court.

22^nd December 2011.

Sd/-

                        [JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-