Date of Filing : 10.03.2021 

Date of Disposal : 20.04.2021

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU 

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL-2021

PRESENT

MR. RAVISHANKAR                                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI  : MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL NO.234/2021

 

 

 

Sri. Shreedhar M Kamalapurkar 

Aged about 44 years, 

S/o Sri.Madan Kamalapurkar, 

R/at Flat No.104, Prakruthi Providence Crest Apartment, 1st Cross, V Main, Tata Nagar, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru-92.

 

By Adv.Sri.S.Krishna Kishore

 

 

 

 

 

 

….Appellant/s

 

V/s

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

HDFC Bank Ltd., 

Credit Card Section, 

Division 8, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600041.

 

HDFC Bank Ltd., 

Richmond Towers, Richmond Road, Shanthalanagar, Richmond Town, 

Bengaluru-25.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…..Respondent/s

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

1. The appellant/Complainant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by III Addl., District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru Urban dtd.12.02.2021.

 

 

2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that, the Complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service. After admission, District Commission issued notice to the Opposite parties and the Opposite parties were represented through their advocates. Subsequently, the matter was posted for evidence of the Complainant on 17.03.2020. But during that time, the Government of Karnataka has announced lockdown due to Covid Pandemic. Again the case was posted on 02.06.2020 for Complainant evidence. The Complainant was not able to appear before the Commission due to his personal health and family health reasons. Finally District Commission on 12.02.2021 dismissed the complaint for default. District Commission made an error in not considering the non-appearance of the Complainant for the reasons ‘pandemic lockdown’. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

 

3. On going through the memorandum of appeal, order passed by District Commission, we noticed that, the complaint was admitted on 19.09.2019 and the notice was issued to the Opposite parties. Subsequently, the Opposite parties appeared before District Commission through their counsel and the case was posted for evidence on 20.02.2020. Subsequently, the District Commission had provided opportunity to the Complainant to lead his evidence even after closure of the lockdown announced by the Govt., We observed that, the lockdown was ended by the end of September 2020. Even after 19.09.2020, the Complainant was not present. Continuously the Complainant was absent when the case was posted for his evidence. This goes to show that, the Complainant is so negligent in appearing before the District Commission to adduce his evidence. Even in the year 2021, the case was posted for evidence of the Complainant as last chance i.e. on 06.01.2021 and also on 01.02.2021. But the Complainant had not provided any valid reasons before the District Commission for his absence. Finally, the District Commission dismissed the complaint for default. We found, the reasons narrated in the memorandum of appeal to set aside the order of dismissal are not justifiable. The Complainant has not produced any materials before us to show that, he and his family suffered ill health. In the absence of such materials, we found no reasons to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, we found no error made by the District Commission in dismissing the complaint for default. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Forward free copies to both parties. 

 

 

 

                 MEMBER                     JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

 

 

*NG*