STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
REVISION NO. 43 OF 2015
(Against order dated 21-03-2015 in Complaint Case
No. 60/2015 of the District Consumer ForumI, Jhansi )
01.Bank of Baroda
Branch Chamanganj
Tandon Road Sipri Bazar, Jhansi
Through its Branch Manager
02. Bank of Baroda
Head Office through its Chairman, Mumbai
...Revisionists
Vs.
Smt. Hemlata
W/o Sri Sunil Kumar Rathore
R/o 1362, Balaji Puram Nandanpura
P.S. Sipri Bazar, Jhansi
...Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Revisionist : Sri Sailesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate.
Dated : 25-07-2016
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)
Sri Sailesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionists appeared. Sri Alok Sinha, learned Counsel for opposite party appeared.
Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party.
Present revision has been filed against order dated 21-03-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jhansi in Complaint No. 60/2015 Smt. Hemlata V/s Bank of Baroda.
Revisionist is Bank of Baroda opposite party of said complaint.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law and without jurisdiction. The amount of loan is Rs.27,00,000/-. Therefore, the
:2:
District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of dispute of this loan agreement. It is further contended by learned Counsel for the revisionists that complaint is defective for non- joinder of necessary parties.
Learned Counsel for the complainant/opposite party has opposed revision. It is contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party that the impugned order has been passed under Section 13(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and it is an interlocutory order. The application moved by complainant/opposite party before District Consumer Forum has not been finally disposed of. Revisionist has opportunity to present his objection before District Consumer Forum and District Consumer Forum is competent to pass final order after hearing both parties on the said application.
It is further contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party/complainant that the complaint filed before District Consumer Forum is within pecuniary jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum.
It is contended by learned Counsel for the opposite party/complainant that the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum shall be determined on the basis of relief claimed in complaint.
We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.
The impugned order dated 21-03-2015 passed by District Consumer Forum shows that application moved by complainant/opposite party under Section 13(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has not yet been finally disposed of. The District Consumer Forum has invited objection on the application and fixed date for its disposal. In the meantime District Consumer Forum has restrained revisionist/opposite party to issue recovery certificate at enhanced rate of interest.
As the impugned order is purely an interlocutory order and final order is yet to be passed by District Consumer Forum, we do not find it proper to interfere in this revision.
In view of above, revision is disposed of finally with liberty to opposite party/revisionist to raise his all objections before District
:3:
Consumer Forum and District Consumer Forum is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously within one month from the date of appearance of parties fixed by this Commission. Both parties shall appear before District Consumer Forum on 26-08-2016.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
pnt