Delhi

StateCommission

RP/129/2018

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAURABH JAISWAL AND ORS - Opp.Party(s)

SOURAV BAJAJ

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                             Date of Decision: 10.04.2019

 

Revision Petition No. 129/2018

(Arising out of the order dated 07.12.2016 passed in complaint case No. 170/2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Qutub, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

Punjab National Bank

Having its Head Office

At Plot No. 4, Sector-10

Dwarka, New Delhi

And having its Branch at:

35, Krishna Market, Post Office Marg

Block-G, Kalka Ji

New Delhi-110019                   …….Petitioner

 

Versus

 

1. Saurabh Jaiswal

S/o Sh. Ravi Prakash

N-115, Ground Floor

Southern Side

Greater Kailash-I

New Delhi-110048

 

Also at:

1083, Old Katra

Allahabad, UP-211002

 

2. State Bank of India

Allahabad University Campus

Allahabad UP-211002

 

3. Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Allahabad University Campus

Allahabad UP-211002                             .........Respondents

                                                                  

BEFORE:

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                  -                  PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                   -                  MEMBER

 

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                    Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                      Yes

 

 

ORDER

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.          Present is a revision petition wherein prayer is made for setting aside order dated 07.12.2016 whereby petitioner and its branch manager i.e. OP-1 and OP-2 are proceeded ex-parte. Alongwith the petition there is an application for condonation of delay of 612 days in filing the revision petition.
2.          As per averments made in the application petitioner herein i.e. OP-1 and 2 before Ld. District Forum were not served with the notice of complaint case. Relevant paras of the application for condonation of delay are reproduced as under:
   1.  

iii. That the petitioner could not appear on 07.12.2016; as the petitioner was not aware of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1; moreover when no notice of the pendency of the complaint was actually served upon the petitioner by the Ld. District Forum. The said fact shall be evident from the bare perusal of the complaint and other documents (as made available to the petitioner from the Ld. DF) being filed along with the petition. There are no documents on record (i.e. proof of delivery) to show valid and effective service of the notice on the petitioner.

iv. The petitioner only came to know of the existence of the complaint in the month of October 2018, when the counsel for the petitioner while searching a judgment from the official site of the court traced the captioned matter. The counsel for the petitioner immediately informed the petitioner bank about the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum. As per the instructions received from the petitioner bank counsel for the petitioner applied for the certified copy of the complete court file on 11.10.2018. The counsel for the petitioner received the certified copy of the complete court file and impugned order on 25.10.2018.

v. After receiving the certified copy of the impugned order, the counsel for the petitioner received the instructions for filing of the present petition in the third week of the October, 2018. After receiving the instruction, the counsel for the petitioner had drafted the present petition.”

 

3.          The averments made in the application are supported with affidavit of Branch Manager of petitioner Bank.
4.          Respondent-1/complainant has not appeared despite being served by registered AD post.
5.          Instead of adjourning the matter which will further delay the matter, we find no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the application which are supported with affidavit of Branch Manager of petitioner/OP-1 and OP-2 to the effect that the petitioner/OP-1 and 2 were not served before Ld. District Forum. Accordingly the delay in filing the petition stands condoned. Since the petitioner was not served before the Ld. District Forum, we also allow the prayer made in the present petition.
6.          Counsel for respondent-2 and 3 is present. However, respondent-2 and 3 are only formal parties to this petition.
7.          For the delay caused respondent-1/complainant is compensated with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. It is stated that next date before Ld. District Forum is 22.05.2019. On the said date petitioner/OP-1 and 2 shall pay the costs of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent/complainant and shall also file their written statement, thereafter, Ld. District Forum shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
8.          Petition stands allowed accordingly.
9.          A copy of the order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of costs and also to the District Forum, New Delhi. Thereafter, the file be consigned to record room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member