Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/11/874

ICICI BANK LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SOU SHANTILAL SIDDAPPA MANKAR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S MANNADIAR & CO

29 Jan 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/11/874
(Arisen out of Order Dated 03/08/2010 in Case No. 464/2010 of District Solapur)
 
1. ICICI BANK LTD
ICICI BANK TOWER BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA EAST MUMBAI 400051
MUMBAI
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SOU SHANTILAL SIDDAPPA MANKAR
SWAGAT NAGAR NEHUR ROAD TALUKA AKKALKOT
SOLAPUR
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
 
PRESENT:Mr.Mannadiar, Advocate for the Appellant.
 
Mr.Rajesh Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent.
 
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

 

          Heard both sides. 

 

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15.07.2011 passed in Consumer Complaint No.464/2010, Shantabai Siddappa Mankar V/s. I.C.I.C.I. Bank  and Anr., by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur.  It is a case of deficiency in service on the part of I.C.I.C.I. Bank for not indemnifying the Complainant on account of death of her son – Sunil S. Mehta, who had taken a housing loan from the Bank.  It is alleged that as per the agreement between the parties i.e. late Sunil S. Mehta and the Bank, the ultimate loan was to get adjusted under the indemnifying agreement.  There is a dispute about the contractual terms of that agreement.  Since the terms are to be established by producing the primary evidence, viz. the documents witnessing the contract/agreement between the parties and as admitted by both the parties no such evidence is led before the Forum, they want to avail an opportunity to lead proper evidence as per provisions of Section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so that the dispute between the parties could be settled in a just and proper manner.  We find, in the backdrop and circumstances of the present case, the facts referring to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank needs to be established by proper documentary as well as evidence on affidavits and for which it would be just and proper to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead their respective evidence.  Holding accordingly, we pass the following order:

 

O  R  D  E  R

 

 (i).            Appeal is allowed.

 

(ii).            Impugned order dated 15/07/2011 is set aside.

 

(iii).            Both parties shall bear before the Forum on 22/02/2013.  After appearance opportunity be given to the Opponent Bank to file their written version.  If the Bank files written version (on their appearance on 22/02/2013) it shall be accepted.  Thereafter, giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence as per provisions of Section 13(4) and hearing both the parties dispute be settled according to law.

 

(iv).            In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

 

(v).            Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

 

Pronounced on 29th January, 2013.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE Mr. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.