Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/119/2023

THE MANAGER HDFC BANK LIMITED CREDIT CARD DIVISION - Complainant(s)

Versus

R KALAIPANDIAN - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.ACUITY LAW ASSOCIATES MR.S.KRISHNAA, MR.M.ANTHONY MOSES

03 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH ... PRESIDENT

 

Revision Petition No.119 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 15.06.2023 passed in C.C. No.55/2023 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North))

 

                                                     Orders, dated:03.11.2023

 

The Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Credit Card Division,

Ceebros Building,

No.110, Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikarai,

Chennai – 600 029.             … Revision Petitioner / Opposite party.

 

 

- Versus –

 

Mr. R. Kalaipandian,

(Ex-I.A.F. Personnel),

S/o. Mr. Rajamanikam,

Door No.3/274, Periyar Nagar,

Krishnagiri – 635 001.                     … Respondent /Complainant. 

 

For Revision Petitioner / Opposite party : M/s. Acuity Law 

                                                                Associates

 

For Respondent /Complainant               : Served called absent

  

This Revision Petition is listed today and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and upon perusing the materials on record, this Commission passes the following:-

 

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.   (Open Court)

 

                This Revision Petition is filed against the Order, dated 15.06.2023 passed by the DCDRC, Chennai (North) in C.C. No.55/2023, whereby, the District Commission has set the Revision Petitioner herein/ Opposite party exparte for non-appearance before the District Commission and consequently adjourned the case to 20.07.2023 for filing proof affidavit of the complainant.

2.     Heard the Revision Petitioner /  Opposite party. 

3.     Though notice has been served on the respondent / complainant by way of paper publication, there was no representation for the respondent / complainant.  Hence, the respondent / complainant was called absent.

4.     The Revision Petitioner /  Opposite party was set exparte for non-appearance before the District Commission. Hence, the Revision Petition.  When the matter had come up before this Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party stated that the notice received from the District Commission has been omitted to be placed before the legal department of the bank.  In the mean time on 15.06.2023, the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party was set exparte.  Thus, he prays for setting aside the exparte order dated:15.06.2023.   When that being the position, we are of the opinion that keeping the Revision Petition filed by the  opposite party pending will further delay the matter.   Hence, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the Revision Petitioner /  Opposite party, in the interests of justice, we are inclined to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

5. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 15.06.2023 passed in C.C. No.55/2023 by the DCDRC, Chennai (North) in setting the Revision Petitioner / Opposite party exparte is set aside and the Opposite Party shall file his Vakalat, Version, Proof Affidavit and the documents/exhibits on their side, if any, in C.C.No.55/2023 on the next date of hearing without fail, whereupon, the District Commission shall proceed with the case in accordance with law for its early disposal.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                R.SUBBIAH, J.

                                                                                   PRESIDENT.

 

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/November/2023.