Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/752

AXIS BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH - Opp.Party(s)

SH.AMIT TIWARI

23 May 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 752 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 20.07.2022 passed in C.C.No.220/2021 by District Commission, Khandwa)

 

BRANCH MANAGER, AXIS BANK & ORS.                                                   …          APPELLANTS

 

Versus

                 

SATISH S/O PANDHARI MARATHE.                                                             …         RESPONDENT.

 

                                      

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                 

                                      O R D E R

 

23.05.2023

 

            Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.

            Ms. Shivali Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the respondent.

                                   

As per A. K. Tiwari : 

                        This appeal by the opposite parties/appellants is directed against the order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khandwa (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.220/2021 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent directing the opposite parties/appellants to give details of outstanding amount of loan account to the complainant and after obtaining the said amount returned the vehicle to the complainant. If the complainant’s vehicle was sold by the opposite parties or they are unable to return the vehicle, then refund the amount paid by the complainant towards loan with interest @ 7% p.a. from

-2-

the date of filing of complaint till payment. Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice along with costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

2.                Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in fact service of notice was not effected on the appellants/opposite parties and as such the appellants remained ex-parte before the District Commission.  He submits that in the circumstances, when the service of notice was not properly effected, reply could not be filed and as such impugned ex-parte order was passed by the District Commission.

3.                Learned counsel for respondent supporting the impugned order argued that the opposite parties/appellants did not appear before the District Commission despite proper service and therefore, the District Commission has rightly proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties/appellants and has rightly passed the impugned order.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

5.                Having gone through the impugned order and the record of the District Commission, we find from the ordersheet dated 28.01.2022, the District Commission directed to issue notices to the opposite parties and the matter was directed to be listed on 03.03.2022. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties on 28.01.2022 for the next date 03.03.2022.

-3-

The acknowledgement due available on record shows service of notice on opposite party no.2 as there is seal of the bank with signature. However, there is no seal and signature on the AD regarding service on opposite party no.1. Similarly, a copy of track consignment is also available on record which shows item delivery confirmed to Khandwa Head Office, but it doesn’t mention that the item was delivered to the opposite party no.3. On the basis of aforesaid, the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against the opposite parties/appellants

6.                We are of the view that the notices were not properly served on the opposite party no.1 and 3/appellants and as such the appellants were deprived of filing reply to complaint.  However, in the interest of justice we deem it appropriate that for proper adjudication of the matter, all the parties should be given equal opportunity to contest the matter. In such circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits in accordance with law.

7.                Copy of complaint along with documents be supplied to the appellants on the date of appearance before the District Commission. Reply to complaint be filed by the appellants/opposite parties before the District Commission within prescribed time limit.

 

-4-

8.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

9.                With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands allowed.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 28.06.2023.

 

                (A. K. Tiwari)               (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

           Presiding Member                   Member