Haryana

StateCommission

RP/63/2016

ICICI BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRITAM LAL - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP SURI

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  63 of 2016

Date of Institution:        18.07.2016

Date of Decision :         16.08.2016

 

 

1.      ICICI Home Finance Limited, SCO 9-11, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

 

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, SCO 257, Sector 12, OP Mini Secretariat, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Pritam Lal aged 58 years, son of Man Singh, resident of Radha Swami Colony, Ambala Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Puneet Tuli, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by ICICI Home Finance Limited and another-opposite parties against the order dated October 15^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that inadvertently, the revision petition was filed on behalf of ICICI Home Finance Limited and ICICI Bank Limited respectively.  The revision petition be only treated on behalf of ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.2 and ICICI Home Finance Limited-opposite party No.1 be treated as performa respondent.

3.      He further urged that ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner was never served upon. The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the ICICI Bank Limited to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is August 18^th, 2016.

4.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioners.  ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

          “Regd. Notice was issued to OP No.2 on dated 10.09.2015.  Postal article not received back served or unserved.  More than one month has been passed.  Case called several times since morning. It is already 3.10 P.M.  No further wait seems to be justified.  OP No.2 is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.

Registered notice issued to OP No.1 received back unserved with the report of incorrect address.  Be filed within three days, then notice to OP No.1 be issued for 13.11.2015 through dasti process.”

 

5.      Perusal of record reveals that by impugned order, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed.  Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner. It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.2 to file reply and contest the complaint.   

6.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, ICICI Bank Limited-opposite party No.2 is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

7.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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.

8.      The ICICI Bank Limited-petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on August 18^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 16.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK