View 24573 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24573 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 2874 Cases Against Union Bank Of India
UNION BANK OF INDIA filed a consumer case on 01 Jun 2023 against SHRIKRISHNA BARKADE in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/19/1321 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Jun 2023.
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1321 OF 2019
(Arising out of order dated 24.04.2019 passed in C.C.No.43/2016 by District Commission, West Nimar, Mandleshwar)
UNION BANK OF INDIA. … APPELLANT
Versus
SHRIKRISHNA KUMAR BARKADE & ORS. … RESPONDENTS.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
O R D E R
01.06.2023
Shri Girish Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent no.1.
Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
As per A. K. Tiwari :
This appeal by the opposite party no.2/appellant-Union Bank of India is directed against the order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Nimar, Mandleshwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.43/2016 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed against the opposite party no.2/appellant-Union Bank of India.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that on 28.03.2019, the matter was heard finally by the President and one Member of the District Commission. Thereafter the District Commission vide impugned order dated 24.04.2019 constituting
-2-
of President and one Member who have heard the matter, allowed the complaint against the opposite party no.2-Union Bank of India. On perusal of the original impugned order in the record, we find that the said order was signed by one Member only and not by the President. Though the ordersheet dated 24.04.2019 wherein it is mentioned that final order is passed separately was signed by the President and the Member, who conducted the proceedings.
3. Section 14 (2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides:
Section 14.Finding of the District Forum—
(1)…….
(2)……
(2A) Every order made by the District Forum under sub-section (1) shall be signed by its President and the member or members, who conducted the proceeding.
On bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is mandatory that every order shall be signed by the President and the member or members, who conducted the proceedings. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the original order was signed by only Member and not by the President.
4. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter we are of a considered view that the matter deserves to be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh in accordance with law.
-3-
5. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission. Record of the case be sent to the District Commission at the earliest.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 03.07.2023.
7. The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law.
8. It is expected from the District Commission to decide the case within a period of three months from the date of appearance of parties.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. However, no order as to costs.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey)
Presiding Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.