Haryana

StateCommission

RP/51/2016

DENA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAPLANA S.RAY - Opp.Party(s)

MAHESH KUMAR YADAV

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  51 of 2016

Date of Institution:        21.06.2016

Date of Decision :         26.09.2016

 

 

Dena Bank through its Principal Officer/Branch Manager, B.O. Old Railway Road, Gurgaon.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Kalpana S. Ray daughter of Shri Shanti Lal Ray, resident of House No.125, Sector 5, Gurgaon through her attorney and father Sh. Shanti Lal Ray sonof Sh. Jetha Bhai Ray, resident of House No.125, Sector 5, Gurgaon.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Mr. Aman Vashisht, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Dena Bank, Gurgaon-opposite party against the orders dated March 20^th, 2015 and October 09^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte and it’s application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed respectively.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.

3.      The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same.  While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.  Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner to contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders dated March 20^th, 2015 and October 09^th, 2015 are set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 26.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK