Delhi

StateCommission

A/532/2016

AMIT KATYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDUSIND BANK LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MUMTAZ AHMAD

02 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :02.12.2016

First Appeal No. 532/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 15.7.16 passed in Complaint Case No.638/13 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi)

In the matter of

Amit Katyal

306, Sushant Tower

3^rd Floor, Sushant Lok II,

Sector-56, Gurgaon

……Appellant

 

Versus

1. Induslnd Bank Ltd.

Through its Branch Manager,

Branch at Lajpat Nagar,

Ravissance House, 1^st Ring Road,

Lajpat Nagar IV,

New Delhi-110024.

2. Induslnd Bank

Through its Manager/authorized Officer,

Induslnd Bank Ltd (Credit Cards Division)

PO Boz 9421, Chakala, MiDC,

Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093

 

Head Office at:

701/801 Solitaire Corporate Park

167, Guru Hargovindji Marg,

Andheri – (E),

Mumbai -400093, Maharashtra,

 

Also at:

Corporate office

 

Induslnd Bank Ltd.

8^th Floor, Tower 1, One India Bulls Centre,

841 S.B. Marg, Elphinstone,

Mumbai -400013

…Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             In this appeal prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 15.7.16 passed in CC No.638/13 titled as Amit Katyal v. Indusind Bank whereby the complaint case has been dismissed in default.
2.             We are not issuing notice of this appeal to the respondent as on the aforesaid date respondent/OP was also not present before the District Forum.
3.             The impugned order dated 15.7.16  reads as under:-

            “Third call has been given at 12.40 p.m.

             One Intern had appeared on behalf of the complainant on the previous date. From the perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that none appeared on behalf of the complainant on 16.11.15, 18.12.15 and again on 22.1.16. Therefore, the appearance on behalf of the complainant is very casual. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint in default for non-prosecution.”

4.             It is stated that on 15.7.16, the Counsel for the appellant/complainant was held up in evidence at Saket Court and by the time he had reached before the District Forum, it is 12.45 p.m. and the matter was already dismissed in default.
5.             In view of the reasoning given which is supported with the affidavit of the appellant/complainant, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the complaint in its original position.
6.             Let the appellant/complainant appear before the Ld. District Forum on 2.2.2017.
7.             Before proceeding further in the matter, the Ld. District Forum shall issue notice to the respondent/OP also.
8.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                              

 

(Salma Noor)

Member