Karnataka

StateCommission

RP/12/2022

The Manager Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B S Srikanth

10 Oct 2022

ORDER

10/10/2022

ORDER

By Sri. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The revision petitioner filed this revision against the order dated 18.06.2022 in C.C.No.88/2021 passed by District Commission, Mandya which rejected the application for permission to file their version and submits that complainant i.e., Respondent No.1 had filed complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service in transferring the amount of Rs.19,21,500/- fraudulently and prayed for refund of the entire amount.After filing complaint District Commission issued notice against this appellant and other respondents.At the time of filing version the respondent No.3 came up with an application to dismiss the complaint against them as they are not necessary parties to the proceedings before District Commission.After hearing on application, the said application was rejected on 21.04.2022.Subsequent to rejection of the application this revision petitioner made an attempt to file version along with application dated 18.06.2022, but, the said application was rejected as the version was not filed within stipulated time as provided under Consumer Protection Act.The rejection made by District Commission is not in accordance with law.In fact, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission had extended limitation period from 15.03.2020 and further extended on 28.08.2020.Without considering the said extension made by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the District Commission rejected the application.They got good case to urge their defence.Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and permit them to file version.

2. On going through the order sheet, memorandum of revision petition it is noticed that after issuance of notice revision petitioner appeared before the District Commission and sought time for filing version.  Subsequently, R3 filed application to delete complaint against them as there is no transaction took place between them.  After receipt of the application the District Commission adjudicated the matter on said application and dismissed the application.  Immediately after dismissal of application this revision petitioner made an attempt to file version along with application.  Said application was rejected as there is delay in filing version. 
3. Anyhow considering the direction given by Hon’ble National Commission for computation of delay with respect to First Appeals, written statements, applications was extended from 28.02.2022 and further 90 days from 01.03.2022 till 29.05.2022, obeying the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission the delay can be condoned.  Accordingly, revision petition allowed on payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- payable to the complainant and order passed by the District Commission while dismissing the application for permission to file version is set aside.  The OP is permitted to file version on the next date of hearing without fail. 

                   Member                          Judicial Member