Delhi

StateCommission

A/424/2015

RATAN MANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 29.09.2015

First Appeal- 424/2015

 

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Ratan Mani

S/o Shri Rajender Mani

Through his authorized Representative

Mr. Shailender Sachan

R/o D-815,

New Friends Colony,

New Delhi-110025

                                                                                  …..Appellant

 

Versus

1. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Through its Managing Director

17^th Floor, Amba Deep Building,

14, K.G. Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

2. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Kanpur Branch, through its Legal Officer,

Sarbjeet Singh

17/3-B, Meghdoot Building, The Mall

Kanpur-208001

 

                                                                                 …..Respondents CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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

 

There is a delay of 77 days in filing the present appeal.

        Appellant herein was the complainant and had filed a complaint case before the District Forum praying for payment of compensation and damages from respondent/OP as well as removal of his name from CIBIL.

        Ld. District Forum has dismissed the complaint for non appearance on 18.05.2015 by passing the following order:

        “None present

        Complainant no appearing since filing the complaint. It appears that complainant does not intend to pursue the complaint. Complaint is dismissed in default for non appearance. File be consigned to record room”.

        No notice of this application as well as appeal is being issued to the respondent/OP as the complaint has been dismissed before being admitted.

        Perusal of order sheet annexed shows that appellant had never appeared after filing the complaint case which was taken for the first time on 08.01.2015. The entire burden is being shifted on the previous counsel in the dismissal of complaint for non appearance.

        The appellant/complainant has also some duty to approach his counsel and to know about the progress of the case. The entire burden cannot be shifted on the lawyer as is contended before us. However, considering that the matter has not been disposed of on merits and to give a chance to the appellant/complainant to contest the case on merits, we condone the delay as well as set aside the impugned order, subject to costs of Rs. 2000/- which shall be deposited by the complainant in Consumer Welfare Fund within 4 weeks.

        Upon showing compliance report before the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

        Appeal stand disposed of accordingly.

        A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be sent to the District Forum.

        File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

 

Rakeeba