NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3181/2014

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARBANS SINGH & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. R.S. BHATIA, MR. H.S. BHATIA & MR. KABIR CHOPRA

13 Oct 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3181 OF 2014
 
(Against the Order dated 02/06/2014 in Appeal No. 479/2012 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. HDFC BANK LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 28, INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-I,
CHANDIGARH
CHANDIGARH
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. HARBANS SINGH & 2 ORS.
S/O. SH. PARTAP SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 30, PHULKIA ENCLAVE,
PATIALA
PUNJAB
2. IQBAL KAUR
S/O. HARBANS SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 30, PHULKIA ENCLAVE,
PATIALA
PUNJAB
3. MANPREET SINGH
S/O. HARBANS SINGH, R/O. H.NO. 30, PHULKIA ENCLAVE,
PATIALA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Kabir Chopra, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Surinder Singh Poonia, Advocate

Dated : 13 Oct 2014
ORDER

1.      This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 02-06-2014 whereby the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was dismissed for want of deposit of the cost and consequently the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. It transpires from a perusal of the record that since there was a delay in filing of appeal by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed. The said application was allowed by the State Commission subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. When the matter was taken up by the State Commission on 04-07-2013 the learned counsel for the petitioner was present to tender the cost to the opposite counsel, however, the counsel for the opposite party was not present on that date and consequently the cost could not be paid to him. Thereupon, the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to deposit the cost with the State Commission and the delay was condoned subject to the said deposit. However, that order was not complied which led to the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently the appeal being dismissed as barred by limitation.

2.      The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that there was a lapse on his part since he could not convey to the concerned branch that the cost was to be deposited with the Commission. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bank should not be made to suffer on account of the lapse on the part of the counsel, particularly when the lapse is related only to the deposit of cost with the Commission. Instead of dismissing the appeal for condonation of delay on account of default in depositing the cost, the State Commission could easily have extended the time for the said deposit. We, therefore, allow the revision petition subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost, set aside the impugned order and direct the State Commission to hear and decide the appeal on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 21-11-2014. The cost shall be paid to the complainant on or before the aforesaid date.

          A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.

 

 
......................J
V.K. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.