Haryana

StateCommission

RP/71/2016

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERAJ CHAWLA - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.GOYAL

23 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  71 of 2016

Date of Institution:        11.08.2016

Date of Decision :         23.08.2016

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through Sh. Kartar Singh Yadav, Chief Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO 61, Sector 15, Old Judicial Complex, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Neeraj Chawla son of Sh. O.P. Chawla, resident of 535/23, Luxmi Garden, Gurgaon

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, Hero Honda Motors Limited, Sector 33, Gurgaon through its Authorized Person.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                         

Present:               Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited-opposite party No.1 is in revision against the order dated May 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that representative of the petitioner has wrongly noted the date May 25^th, 2016 instead of May 24^th, 2016 due to which he could not appear on the date fixed and was proceeded ex parte. 

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is October 03^rd, 2016.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, the revision petition is accepted and the  this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. 

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3000/- 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.

6.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.  In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on October 03^rd, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 23.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK