Taken up through video conferencing.

1.       Repeatedly called out.

No one appears. 

2.       This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.12.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 545 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 03.07.2019 of the District Commission in complaint no. 32 of 2019.

3.       A perusal of the record shows that the District Commission had partly allowed the complaint, on contest, and, for the reasons recorded, had ordered the opposite party bank to issue NOC and Form No. 35 to the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation.

4.       Appeal filed by the opposite party bank (the revisionist herein) was dismissed by the State Commission, finding no merit in it. The operative paragraphs of the State Commission’s said Order of 16.12.2019 is reproduced below:

“13.     The District Forum has rightly observed that as the complainant has repaid all the dues and nothing is due towards him.  Therefore, the agreement comes to end.  The complainant is entitled to NOC and Form no.35.

“14.     In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.  The order of the District Forum is upheld.”

This revision petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.

5.       On the face of it we notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity. As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the petition in default in the absence of the petitioner today.

The revision petition no. 290 of 2020 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

6.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately.  The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.