ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard the Revisionist/original Complainant in person.
[2] Revisionist has made a grievance about an order dated 7/3/2013 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.99 of 2012, Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., granting an adjournment to the Respondent/original Opponent to file its evidence by way of an affidavit. It is his submission that when he had objected for grant of an adjournment to the Respondent/original Opponent, an order rejecting request for grant of adjournment ought to have been passed by the Forum or in case, if the Forum was inclined to grant an adjournment to the Respondent/original Opponent then, in such a case, a reasoned order ought to have been passed and an adjournment should have been granted by imposing suitable costs on the Respondent/original Opponent. Revisionist referred to Regulation-11 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 for that purpose. We find that grievance made by the Revisionist has some substance and the Forum ought to have given some adequate reasons while granting an adjournment to the Respondent/original Opponent and certainly, when costs were pressed by the Revisionist/original Complainant those aspects ought to have taken into consideration. Further, on factual matrix, an adjournment was sought by the Respondent/original Opponent on the ground that they were collecting information on certain documents and circulars referred and provided by the Revisionist/original Complainant and, therefore, an adjournment was sought. If the documents and circulars were already produced on the record by the Revisionist/original Complainant, there was no need for the Respondent/original Opponent unless he specified the nature thereof and as to why he could not get it earlier, to get further information on those documents. The judicial discretion was exercised by the Forum in favour of grant of adjournment to the Respondent/original Opponent. Even though the Forum ought to have considered the request of the Revisionist/original Complainant to saddle the Respondent/original Opponent with costs while in its wisdom were not awarded, however, it is not a fit case to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Commission under Section-17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If the revision is entertained, we are afraid, it would result into protraction of the trial of the consumer dispute. Judicial discretion used by the Forum except for the comments made earlier, cannot be faulted with or suffer from any material illegality which is a pre-requisite condition. Upon considering all these aspects, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Revision is not admitted and stands dispose of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 09th April, 2013
