STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR V/S FIRM KAUR CHAND VED PRAKASH - Consumer Court Case

NCDRC

RP/3991/2009

FIRM KAUR CHAND VED PRAKASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

07 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 3991 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 16/09/2008 in Appeal No. 730/2008 of the State Commission Rajasthan)

1. FIRM KAUR CHAND VED PRAKASHFirn Kaur Chand Ved Prakash. Dabli Ratha Tehsil & Distt. Hanumangarh Through Its Branch Manager						...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPURBranch Manager Dabli Rathan Tehsil & Distt. Hanumangarh Through Its Branch Manager						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

IN PERSON

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 07 Jan 2010

ORDER

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.

None for the Petitioner even though the mater was called twice in the morning session. Notice was sent to the Petitioner by Registered A.D. on 3.11.2009 to remove certain defects. The Petitioner was also informed by the same notice that the matter shall be taken for admission by this Commission on 7.1.2010. The Office has reported that defects have been removed which means that the Petitioner is aware of the date fixed today. Besides that Registered A.D. notice has not been returned unserved and it also presumed that the Petitioner is duly notified. On this count alone, the petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution. Besides, there is delay of 180 days in filing the revision. Even on merits, Impugned order do not find that any case whatsoever has been made out. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum and the appeal filed by the Complainant was also dismissed by the State Commission. There are, thus, concurrent findings of two fora below. The State Commission has held as under:- In this case it is not disputed that the Respondent had displayed on its notice board and communicated through news papers regarding minimum balance and in such circumstances despite this communication the Complainant did not maintain the required minimum balance, as such the bank did not commit any deficiency in service at its part and the Forum below did not committed any legal and factual error by rejecting the complaint of the Complainant. In view of the above, Impugned order am of the opinion that no case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by fora below. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs on the ground of non-prosecution as also on the issue of limitation in filing the revision as well as on merits with no order as to costs.

......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER