Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

 2.     This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant has got SB account with the OP Bank. Complainant alleged inter alia that he has withdrawn money from his PF account for his daughter’s marriage and accordingly, Rs.30,000/- has been transferred to his SB account on 14.7.2012. On 11.8.2012, the complainant found that there was withdrawal of Rs.30,075/- on different occasions. Complainant lodged complaint with the OP and the OP assured to look after the matter. Since no relief was given by the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.      Advocate for the OP appeared but did not file written version for which OP was set ex parte.

5.      Learned District Forum passed the ex parte order by allowing the complaint in the following manner:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

The consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against the OP with cost. The Op is directed to credit Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand only) to the Account of the complainant followed by interest @ 4% per annum from 06.08.2012 till credit along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, failing which it will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the OPs as per law, in case of failure by the OP to comply the order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum committed error in law by not giving any opportunity to the OP  for filing written version and of being heard. Further, he submitted that he has enough material to show that the complainant has withdrawn the money on 19.7.2012, 25.7.2012, 1.8.2012 and 6.8.2012. So he submitted to allow the appeal by remanding the matter for fresh hearing.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      On perusal of impugned order, it appears that the advocate for the OP appeared but did not file written version for which OP was set ex parte. When the onus lies on the complainant to prove that he has not withdrawn any money but OP claims that he has withdrawn money, opportunity should be given to the OP to produce the document along with his plea. Here, of course, the advocate for the OP appears but did not file written version. It is well settled in law that for the latches of the lawyer, the party should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, it is a fit case that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum for denovo hearing after giving opportunity to the OP to file written version of course subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- by the appellant to the respondent before the learned District Forum.

9.      Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum for allowing the appellant to file written version and give opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, if any subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- by OP to complainant before District Forum and thereafter take decision on the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 12.5.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

            DFR be sent back forthwith. Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

                Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.