KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.931/03 JUDGMENT DATED.29.2.2008 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER The Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Pottenkadu Branch, Pottenkadu Kara, Bisonvally village, -- APPELLANT Udumpanchola Taluk. (By Adv.M.Nizamudeen) Vs. Fince Jose, Vekkaringattu House, Udumpanchola Taluk, -- RESPONDENT Bisonvally Village, Thekkinkanam kara. (S.Krishnakumar) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is filed against the order dated. 29.10.03 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.23/03. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party/Bank in granting a loan applied for by the complainant. The opposite party/Bank entered appearance and filed written version disputing and denying the case of deficiency of service. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant to certain extent and thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite party/Bank to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- by way of compensation with cost of Rs.1500/- with a default clause. Hence the present appeal by the opposite party/bank. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments on the basis of the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal. He vehemently argued for remanding the matter as the appellant/opposite party was not given the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the contentions adopted in the written version. He also drew our attention to the petition filed as IA.18/03 before the Forum below seeking for re-opening the evidence and to afford an opportunity to the opposite party to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeal 3. On a perusal of the Lower court records, it can be seen that the Forum below passed the impugned order without any evidence from the side of the opposite party/Bank. A perusal of the proceeding paper is maintained by the forum below in OP.No.23/03 would make it clear that the complainant was examined as PW1 and P1 to P10, and R1 documents were marked on 27.5.03. There after both the parties were not ready and the matter was adjourned to 9.6.03, 3.7.03, 18.7.03, 22.7.03, 6.8.03, 18.8.03 and ultimately both parties were heard on 15.9.03 and the OP. posted for passing orders on 7.10.03. Then the opposite party/Bank came up with IA.18/03 which was filed on 23.9.03. The Forum below posted that petition to 7.10.03. But, on 7.10.03, there was no representation for the petitioner and so the aforesaid IA filed by the opposite party for getting the evidence re-opened was dismissed for default. So, the materials on record would make it crystal clear that the opposite party/Bank was given sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence in support of its contentions. But, the opposite party totally failed in adducing the evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that the opposite party/Bank was negligent in defending its case. So, the request of the appellant/opposite party for a remand cannot be allowed without imposing a fine for the negligence and laches shown by the appellant/opposite party. 4. It is true, that the OP was disposed of by the forum below without getting the evidence from the side of the opposite party/Bank. The Justice would demand that there must be an order on merits. But, the appellant/Bank is to be penalized for their negligence and laches. The respondent/complainant is also to be compensated for the negligence and laches shown by the appellant/opposite party/Bank. We are of the view that the matter can be remanded on terms of costs of Rs.2000/-. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. The impugned order dated.29.10.03 passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.23/03 is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Forum below on condition that the appellant/opposite party deposited or paid the cost of Rs.2000/- on or before 17.3.08 failing which this appeal will stand dismissed. The court officer is directed to ascertain as to whether the cost is deposited or paid. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER s/L | 
