STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      REVISION NO. 136 OF 2016

              (Against the order dated 03-10-2016 in Complaint Case No.

                     234/2016 of the District Consumer Forum, Ballia)

INDUSIND Bank Limited

State Office at Saran Chamber-II

Park Road, Hazaratganj, Lucknow

Through its Manager Legal

Interalia office at Branch Ballia

Vishunipur Sahar, Ballia

Post & District Ballia                                                         ...Revisionist

                                                          V/s

01.Krishna Murari Singh

     S/o Late Parasuram Singh

     R/o Village Baikunthpur

     Post Kopanwa, District Ballia

02.Chola Mandalam Insurance Company Limited

Through Branch Manager

Office at Second Floor, Dare House

2-NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600001

1. Motor Repairing Workshop

Through its owner, Kaviji Baheri

Post and District Ballia

2. Owner/Manager, Janata Gairaj

     Barwadda, District Dhanbad

     Jharkhand                                                                      ...Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. VIJAI VARMA, MEMBER

For the Revisionist        :  Mr. Brijendra Chaudhary, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :                       

Dated :  27-10-2016

                                       JUDGMENT

            MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL) 

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused impugned order dated 03-10-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum, Ballia in Complaint Case No. 234/2016 Krishna Murari V/s Indusind Bank Limited and others whereby the District Consumer Forum has ordered revisionist/opposite party to release Vehicle No. U.P. 60T/2545 in favour of complainant/

:2:

  opposite party.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order has been passed by single Member of the District Consumer Forum and is without jurisdiction.

It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the application for interim relief moved in above complaint has been finally disposed of by the District Consumer Forum without affording opportunity of hearing to revisionist/opposite party. On this ground also the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum is against law.

We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the revisionist.

Perusal of the impugned order shows that complaint was filed on 03-10-2016 before the District Consumer Forum and on the same day the impugned order has been passed by a single member without affording opportunity of hearing to opposite parties of the complaint.

In view of above, we are of the view that impugned order is against law.

The revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside with liberty to revisionist to file his objection before the District Consumer Forum by date fixed against application moved for interim relief by complainant and District Consumer Forum is directed to pass fresh order on application moved for interim relief after hearing both parties within 15 days.

In the meantime parties shall maintain status-quo.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

                                                               ( JUSTICE A. H KHAN )

                                                                                  PRESIDENT

                                                                  ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                                                                       MEMBER

                                                                           ( VIJAI VARMA )

                                                                                       MEMBER

Pnt.