Sri Subhra Sankar Bhatta, Presiding Member
Order No. 04
None appears on behalf of the Revisionist/Petitioner, Bank of Baroda, Tegharia Branch despite repeated call.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 is present.
Respondent No. 2/RBI Banking (OMBUDSMAN) Kolkata did not turn up in spite of service of notice. Let the present Revision Petition be proceeded ex parte against Respondent No. 2.
Today is fixed for final hearing of the Revision Petition.
The Revision Petition is taken up for hearing.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 at length and in full.
Seen the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 vide order no. 5 passed by the Ld. District Commission at Howrah in complaint case no. CC/251/2022.
Perused the entire materials available on record.
Considered.
It is the settled principle of law that the Revision Petition cannot and should not be dismissed for default due to the absence of the Revisionist/Petitioner. The Revision Petition should be considered on merit.
The present Revision Petition has been preferred by the Revisionist/Petitioner viz. Bank of Baroda, Tegharia Branch challenging the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 vide order no. 5 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah in connection with consumer complaint case no. CC/251/2022 whereby Ld. Commission below was pleased to pass the following order:
“Complainant is absent without any step. OPs are absent without any step and did not file W/V Vide order dated 13.01.2023 it appears that statutory period for filing W/V of the OPs is over. Thus, case do proceed ex parte against OPs.”
Fix 03.05.2023 for ex parte hearing.”
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above order the OP no. 1 as Revisionist/Petitioner preferred the present Revision Petition on various grounds as highlighted in the body of the Revision Petition. It has been contended that the Ld. District Commission failed to appreciate certain facts of the complaint case and passed the impugned order erroneously; that the Ld. District Commission arbitrarily passed the impugned order which is not tenable in the eye of law; that the Ld. District Commission did not consider the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act which has been enacted for the interest and protection of the Consumers from exploitation; that the impugned order has caused huge sufferings, irreparable loss and injury to the Revisionist/Petitioner. On all such grounds the Revisionist/Petitioner prayed for allowing the Revision Petition after setting aside the order impugned.
The case record goes to indicate that despite repeated call Revisionist/Petitioner did not turn up to contest the Revision Petition. On the previous occasion hearing was adjourned on the prayer of the Revisionist/Petitioner. The Revisionist/Petitioner was granted adjournment in order to file certain documents in support of his claim. No such document has come on record. The performance of the Revisionist/Petitioner inspires us to hold that the Revisionist/Petitioner is not willing to proceed further with the present Revision Petition.
During the course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has drawn our attention to order nos. 4 and 5 dated 13.01.2023 and 16.01.2023 respectively and boldly submitted that present Revisionist/Petitioner /OP No.1 did not appear before the Ld. District Commission on receipt of notice. He has further submitted that those orders go to indicate that notice was duly served on 10.11.2022 but the present Revisionist Petitioner/OP No. 1 failed to present their Written Version within the stipulated period as prescribed under the law. Consequently, the complaint case was proceeded ex parte against the OPs. According to the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Complainant there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the Ld. District Commission and as such the same should be affirmed in the eye of law.
We have meticulously gone through the impugned order dated 16th January, 2023 passed by the Ld. District Commission. The observations and ultimate conclusion of the Ld. District Commission are absolutely correct and justified. We do not find any irregularity, propriety or illegality in the impugned order of the Ld. Commission below. Thus, being the position we have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned order does not deserve interference of this Hon`ble State Commission.
The impugned order requires to be sustained.
Resultantly, the present Revision Petition fails.
It is, therefore,
O R D E R E D
That the present Revision Petition being No. RP/65/2023 be and the same is dismissed on merit against Respondent No. 1 and ex parte against the rest but considering the circumstances without any order as to costs.
That the impugned order dated 16.01.2023 vide order no. 5 passed by the Ld. Commission below in consumer complaint case No. CC/251/2022 is hereby affirmed.
Interim stay, if any, be vacated forthwith.
Thus, the Revision Petition stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Ld. District Commission below at once for information and taking necessary action.
Note accordingly.
