STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                   UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                      REVISION NO. 110 OF 2015

           (Against the order dated 08-06-2015 in Complaint Case No.

                 42/2015 of the District Consumer Forum, Firozabad)

Oriental Bank of Commerce, a body corporate

Duly constituted under the Banking Companies

(Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act

No.40,(Forty) 1980 (Nineteen Hundred Eighty)

Having its Head Office at ‘Harsh Bhawan’,

E Block, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001

(Eleven Zero Zero Zero One) having other

Branches all over India including one at Agra

Gate Branch Near Gau Shalla at District

Firozabad U.P. through its Chief Manager/

Principal Officer Sri vijay Kumar

                                                                                   ...Revisionist/Opposite Party

                                                     Vs.

Smt. Preeti Agarwal

W/o Sri Rajiv Kumar

R/o Nagala Bhau

Near VK Glass Factory

Firozabad, U.P. 

                                                              ...Respondents/Complainant

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI, MEMBER

For the Revisionist      :   Sri Avaneesh Pal, Advocate.

For the Respondent     :            -

Dated : 13-08-2015

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT(ORAL)

        This revision has been filed by revisionist/opposite party against the order dated 08-06-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Firozabad in Complaint Case No. 42/2015, wherein the recovery initiated by the revisionist/opposite party against the complainant/respondent has been stayed and the opposite party has been ordered to file the written statement.

        We have heard Sri Avaneesh Pal learned Counsel for the revisionist at the time of admission of this revision and we have come to this conclusion that this revision is worth decision at the stage of its admission. Since there had been a case of the complainant against the opposite party that opposite

:2:

party had been deficient in service thereby not getting the machinery and raw material of the complainant insured there being the creditor of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the compensation as there had been the theft committed for the machinery and raw material of the complainant and the complainant deprived the claim of insurance. Since the facts in dispute are sub judice before the District Consumer Forum, the bank cannot be permitted to recover the amount unless it is held that there was no deficiency of service of the bank. Therefore, in such scenario of the facts, the interim order passed by the District Consumer Forum thereby staying the recovery cannot be said to have been passed illegally or out of record. Hence this revision has no force against the impugned order which is liable to be dismissed.

                                               ORDER

        The aforesaid revision is hereby dismissed accordingly.

                                                                              ( JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH )

                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

                        ( U S AWASTHI )

   MEMBER

            Pnt.