Delhi

StateCommission

A/258/2017

SHAMINDER KAUR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITY BANK - Opp.Party(s)

KARMAN MALIK

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 15.10.2019

First Appeal No. 258/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 11.09.2014 passed in complaint case No. 303/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

 

          Mrs Shaminder Kaur Singh

          W/o: Late Pritam Singh Madan

          R/o: J-3/78, B 3^rd Floor Khirki Extension,

          Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017                                       .....Appellant

 

Versus

 

          The City Bank (NA)

Through its Manager

City Bank N.A.

124, Jevan Bharti Building,

3^rd Floor Connaught Place

New Delhi-110001                                                           ……Respondent

           

                                                                  

CORAM

 

Salma Noor, Presiding Member

 

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

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                  

 

 

Salma Noor:         Presiding Member

 

          By way of this appeal prayer is made for recalling of the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI in Complaint Case No. 303/2012 whereby the complaint filed by appellant herein is dismissed for non-prosecution.

           It is stated by the appellant/complainant that she has filed a complaint before the District Forum along with her husband Sh. Pritam Singh Madan. It is stated that being an advocate husband of the appellant/complainant was looking after the matter before the District Forum. It is further stated that the matter was pending since 2012 and during the pendency of the complaint husband of the appellant/complainant develops serious health problems and was expired on 09.05.2013. It is further stated that appellant/complainant was not aware about the legality of the case therefore the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution/default. It is stated that the appellant/complainant is an old lady of 70 years of age and she came to know about the dismissal of his complaint only when she received summon of execution petition from Saket Court New Delhi. After receiving summon on enquiry it came to the knowledge of the appellant/complainant that matter has been dismissed in default. It is stated that non appearance is not intentional but due to the circumstances which were beyond the control of the appellant/complainant.

          The averments made in the appeal are supported with affidavit of the appellant/complainant.

          I find no reason to disbelieve the version of the appellant/complainant. After some arguments counsel for respondent/OP also states that he has no objection if the appeal is allowed and matter be heard on merits. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside and complaint is restored to its original position.

          Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.12.2019. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in matter in accordance with law.

          Appellant/complainant is warned to be cautious in future.

Copy of the order be sent to parties as well as to District Forum for necessary information.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Salma Noor)

Presiding Member