Haryana

StateCommission

RP/53/2017

HDFC Bank Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satbir Singh Chahal - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    53 of 2017

Date of Institution:       30.05.2017

Date of Decision:         31.05.2017

 

 

 

HDFC Bank Limited, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its Branch Manager, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

 

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Satbir Singh Chahal son of Shri Randhir Singh Chahal, resident of House No.797, Sector-19, Part-2, Urban Estate, Kaithal, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

……Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                   Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

 

Present:     Shri Sunil Narang, counsel for the petitioner

 

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

HDFC Bank Limited, Kaithal-opposite party (for short ‘Bank’) is in revision against the orders dated April 06^th, 2017 and May 12^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the Bank was proceeded ex parte and it’s application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed respectively.   

2.      Learned counsel for the Bank has urged that the notice was received by subordinate staff of Bank but he did not inform the Bank due to which nobody could appear on behalf of the Bank on April 06^th, 2017 and was proceeded ex parte.

3.      He has further urged that an opportunity be granted to the Bank to file written version and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is June 06^th, 2017 for recording evidence of the complainant.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the Bank to file written version and contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders dated April 06^th, 2017 and May 12^th, 2017 are set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.­­­­3000/- which is to be paid by the Bank to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The Bank is accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

6.      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.

7.      The Bank is directed to appear before the District Forum, on ­­­­­June 06^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

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

                                                                                                                         

Announced 31.05.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K.