No one appears for the petitioner. Revision petitions as such are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. ..…………………………… (R. C. JAIN J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ..…………………………… (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER
After a little while, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, appeared and expressed his inability to attend the court earlier. Accordingly, the above order is recalled and the revision petitions are restored. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders passed by the fora below i.e. by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh vide order dated 04.07.2011 and thereafter by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (for short the State Commission) vide order dated 05.03.2012 in Appeal Nos. 209 of 2011 and 218 of 2011, the original complainant has approached this Commission. Both the fora below have dismissed the complaints of the petitioner/complainant by holding that no deficiency was committed by the opposite parties/Banks and it had not been established that they have divulged the personal account information of the petitioner/complainant to Opposite Party No.2/Ravinder Sharma. We have heard Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and have considered his submissions. He would assail the orders primarily on the ground that the orders passed by the fora below are not based on proper and correct appreciation of the respective pleas put-forth by the parties as also the evidence and material brought on record. According to him but for the Opposite Parties/Banks having divulged the private, personal and secret information about the loan account of the petitioner/complainant, Opposite Party No.2/Ravinder Sharma could not accessed to the same and having obtained the same, he filed a complaint to the employer of the petitioner/complainant, on account of which much harassment was caused to the petitioner/complainant. We have noted these submissions only to be rejected because the question has been properly addressed and answered by the fora below. In our view, the orders passed by the fora below do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, much less any jurisdictional error, which warrants interference by this Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction vested under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. |
