Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/6/2017

HDFC Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nikhil Goel - Opp.Party(s)

Er. Sandeep Suri, Adv.

01 Jun 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                               

Revision Petition No.	:	6 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	07.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	01.06.2017

 

1. HDFC Bank, CS No.B/242, Senapati Marg, Mumbai 400013.
2. HDFC Bank, Card Division, PO 8154, Thiruvanmiyar, Chennai.
3. HDFC Bank, SCO 371-372, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

……Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

 

Versus

 

Nikhil Goel, resident of House No.3155, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh, through a special power of attorney Deepak Aggarwal son of R.C.Aggarwal, r/o Flat No.B4, Gulmohar City, Dera Bassi.

 

….Respondent/complainant.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners.

Sh. P.K.Chugh, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

 

(ORAL)

            This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/Opposite Parties, against order dated 12.02.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short “the Forum” only), vide which, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were ordered to be proceeded against exparte for not putting in appearance and Opposite Party No.3 was given time to file reply and evidence. They further challenge the order dated 03.01.2017 dismissing an application filed by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to recall the order dated 12.02.2016. It is stated that the non appearance on 12.02.2016 was not intentional.

2.         We have seen the record.

3.         It is apparent on record that on the very first day by raising presumption of service, exparte proceedings were ordered. We cannot find any fault with the order passed by the Forum. However, at the same time, we feel that it will be desirable in this case to allow the revision petitioners No.1 to 3, to place on record their reply, evidence and contest the complaint on merits.

4.         Counsel for the respondent/complainant has failed to show why this revision petition be not allowed.

5.         Under above circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. Orders dated 12.02.2016 & 03.01.2017, under challenge, are set aside.

6.         Counsel for the revision petitioners/Opposite Parties undertakes that he will file reply and evidence/affidavit positively within 10 working days, failing which, no further opportunity shall be granted and Forum is free to pass order, as per law.

7.         Parties/their Counsel are directed to put in appearance before the Forum on 04.07.2017.

8.         Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost. The said amount shall be paid by the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties to the respondent/ complainant on the next date fixed by the Forum.

9.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.        Complete record alongwith a certified copy of this order be sent to the Forum, immediately, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

11.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

1^st June, 2017.

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Rb/gp