NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1565/2010

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.C. RISHI - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. KUMAR LAW FIRM

12 Oct 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 08/09/2009 in Appeal No. 926/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. HDFC BANK LTD. 9th Floor, Ansal Classique Tower, J Block, Community Centre, Jarouri Garden New Delhi - 110027 Delhi	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. P.C. RISHI R/o. 169, Anupam Apartments, M.B. Road, Saket New Delhi Delhi	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

M/S. KUMAR LAW FIRM

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 12 Oct 2010

ORDER

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 8.9.2010 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal -2- Commission, Delhi (in short, he State Commission in appeal No. A-2008/926. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum in complaint case No. 130 of 2007 by which the District Consumer Forum had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein with a direction to the petitioner-bank to refund a sum of Rs.38,262/- to the complainant and to pay further a sum of Rs. 2 lakh as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation. Besides the above said award, the District Consumer Forum had also restrained the bank from presenting the cheques for the month of February, 07 to July, 2007 for encashment of any of these cheques from the account of the complainant. In appeal, the State Commission dismissed the appeal by giving certain additional reasons while it confirmed the finding of the District Forum. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-Bank has purportedly filed this revision petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Notice on the revision was issued to the respondent-complainant only on limited question as to whether going by the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and extent -3- of the deficiency, which has been found on the part of the petitioner-bank, the award of compensation of Rs. 2 lakh was excessive. In response to the said show cause notice, the respondent has put in appearance and has filed an application seeking dismissal of the revision petition on the ground that the revision petition is not maintainable, having been filed by a person who is not authorized in law to file the same and in any case, the petition is barred by limitation. In response to the said application, the petitioner has filed reply and an attempt has been made to show that on the strength of a power of attorney executed on 6.5.2010, the petition before this Commission was filed by a duly authorized person, namely, Shri Rajkumar Anand, who had signed, verified and filed the revision petition on behalf of the petitioner-bank. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the said power of attorney and going by face value of the same. It would appear to us that the said power of attorney in no way can be said to have vested Mr. Raj Kumar Anand authority to sign, verify and file the petition as on the date of filing of the revision -4- petition viz. 28.04.2010, his authority to act and file such a petition having come to an end on 31.3.2010. Power of attorney was given by him by resolution dated 17.04.2010. Power of Attorney and authorisation of Shri Neeraj Dhawan, who had in turn authorized Mr. Raj Kumar Anand had come to an end on 31.03.2010. The said power of attorney cannot have a retrospective application and, therefore, the revision petition filed by Mr. Raj Kumar Anand for and on behalf of petitioner-bank cannot be said to have been properly and legally filed. The revision petition as such is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. We order accordingly.

......................J

R.C. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

MEMBER