Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/36/2023

The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda (Formerly Vijaya Bank) - Complainant(s)

Versus

E. Ramachandran - Opp.Party(s)

M/s E. Vijayaraghavan

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

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

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.36 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 23.01.2023 passed in C.C. No.385/2022 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South))

 

                                                     Orders, dated:12.04.2023

 

The Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

(Formerly Vijaya Bank),

Arcot Road Branch,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.             … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

- Versus –

Mr. E. Ramachandran,

No.57/3, Logaiah Colony,

5^th Cross Street,

Saligramam,

Chennai – 600 093.                       … Respondent/Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner/Opposite party : M/s. E. Vijayaraghavan.

1^st Respondent/Complainant                : Called absent

 

     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 23.01.2023 passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in C.C. No.385/2022 whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte for non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days and consequently, adjourned the Case to 15.02.2023 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

 

2.     Though M/s. T. Nixon, Advocate undertaken to file Vakalat for the respondent / complainant, he had neither appeared nor filed Vakalath.  Hence, the respondent / complainant was called absent.

 

3.     Heard the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.  This Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days.   When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for Revision Petitioner / Opposite party submitted that he has not properly calculated the limited period to file the written version before the District Commission.   Hence, the Opposite party was set exparte on 23.01.2023.   Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:23.01.2023.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the Opposite Party pending will further delay the matter and further, the non-filing of written version within the statutory period of 45 days was neither willful nor wanton which was also evident from their petition.  Since the reasons assigned by the opposite party seems to be bonafide and also, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

 

5.     In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 23.01.2023 passed in C.C. No.385/2022 by the DCDRC, Chennai (South) in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside, and the Opposite party shall file his Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C. No.385/2022 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.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/ April /2023.