Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/6/2021

L. Jayageetha, W/o M Lakshmi Narayanan, Main Road, Puragramam, Thittachery 609 703. Nagapattinam District. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Indian bank, Thittachery 609 703 Nagapattinam District. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Muthukrishnan

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.6 of 2021

(Against the Order, dated 08.02.2021, passed in CMP Nos.37 & 38 of 2020, in C.C. No.16/20, on the file of  the DCDRF, CUDDALORE)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:  12.04.2022

 

L.Jayageetha,

W/o.M.Lakshmi Narayanan,

Main Road (Raja Street),

Puragramam, Thittachery 609 703

Nagapattinam District.      …Revision Petr./Respondent/Complainant

vs.

 

The Manager,

Indian Bank,

Thittachery 609 703.

Nagapattinam District.      …Respondent/Petitioner/Opp. Party

 

             For Revision Petitioner     :  M/s.R.Muthukrishnan

             For Respondent               :  M/s.RRK Associates

 

This Revision is coming up for hearing today and, after hearing the counsel for the parties and upon perusing the material available on record, this commission passes the following:     

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.  

 

             The present Revision Petition has been filed against the Order, dated 08.02.2021, passed by the DCDRF, Cuddalore, in CMP Nos.37 & 38 of 2020 in C.C. No.16 of 2020.

 

             2. The revision petitioner originally filed C.C. No.1 of 2019 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, as against the respondent herein/Indian Bank/OP, seeking to direct the Bank to pay to her Rs.1,73,426/-, as detailed therein.  In the said complaint, after filing of written version by the OP on 18.09.2019, proof affidavit by the complainant and the OP was filed on 08.11.2019 and 10.01.2020 respectively, whereupon,  an order, dated 10.01.2020, was passed by the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, to the following effect:-

             “ Proof affidavit of opposite party filed.  ….  Counsel for opposite party submits no document to be marked in his side.  Opposite party evidence closed.  For filing written argument & advancing oral argument of both side at request adjourned to 24.01.2020. “

On 24.01.2020, written arguments of the complainant was filed and the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, ordered as follows:-

     “ Written argument of complainant filed.  Written argument of opposite party filed. For oral argument of both sides at request adjourned to 07.02.2020.”

Subsequently, on 07.02.2020, the said Forum ordered to the following effect,

             “Oral argument of complainant heard.  No representation for opposite party.  For oral argument of opposite party adjourned to 21.02.2020.”

At that juncture, the OP/Bank filed CMP No.11 of 2020 under Section 151 CPC to re-open the case and another petition in CMP No.12 of 2020 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for filing certain documents.  By counter replies, dated 06.03.2020, the complainant opposed both the petitions and, by a docket order/Note, the District Forum, Nagapattinam, on the same date, submitted to the State Commission for transfer of the case to any other Forum.  Consequently, after considering the matter, the State Commission transferred the case to the file of DCDRF, Cuddalore.  After the said transfer, on 22.12.2020, the main case was re-numbered as C.C. No.16 of 2020 and the Miscellaneous Petitions as CMP Nos.37 and 38 of 2020 respectively.   On 19.01.2021, the DCDRF, Cuddalore, heard both sides and, by orders, dated 08.02.2021, allowed both the CMPs.

             Aggrieved by the said order, originally, the complainant filed F.A.SR.No.155 of 2021, which came to be rejected by the State Commission,  vide orders, dated 30.07.2021, by holding that only a revision would lie against the said order and not an appeal.   Consequently, the complainant preferred a review application in CMP SR. No.285 of 2021 and it was dismissed by the Commission on 17.09.2021, by making it clear that, in the event of the petitioner filing a revision as against the orders passed by the District Forum in CMP Nos.37 and 38 of 2020, the same can be entertained, and by holding that, only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the State Commission has the power to review an order.

             It is in the above background, the petitioner has now come up with the present Revision.

             3.  It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, after taking a stand that no document would be marked on their side and that the evidence on their side was closed, which is evident from the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam, dated 10.01.2020, when the case had reached a stage that arguments of the complainant were heard and, by orders, dated 07.02.2020, it was adjourned for the arguments of the Opposite Party, subsequent to which, the case was also transferred to the file of the District Forum, Cuddalore, the contrary conduct of the OP/Bank in filing the CMPs seeking to re-open the case and to file certain documents clearly depicts their unfair approach, thus, they cannot legally maintain those petitions.  That being so, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, Cuddalore, in allowing the CMPs to re-open the case and to file documents highly prejudiced the interests of the Revision Petitioner and it may virtually result in miscarriage of justice.  Since the said order has been passed without any logic and legal basis, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Commission, he pleaded.

 

             4.  Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank would submit that it is true that, during the pendency of the cases before the DCDRF, Nagapattinam, upto the stage of hearing arguments of the complainant, there was no necessity for the Bank to file any document, however, due to the subsequent development that they approached the IT Department in respect of the tax deduction from the accrued interest of seven deposits made by the complainant and that the documents connected thereto are absolutely necessary to disprove the claim of the complainant, there arose a necessity for them to file the Miscellaneous Petitions, seeking to re-open the case and to file certain documents.  According to him, since the District Forum, Cuddalore, after properly analysing the materials, came to a factual and logical conclusion that the documents sought to be relied upon are essential to adjudicate the main case, no interference is called for and further, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner   over the acceptance of the Bank’s plea in that regard and hence, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.

 

             5.  After considering the submissions of both sides, we are of the view that the case of the Revision Petitioner does not merit acceptance.  It must be pointed out that hearing comes to an end only with the pronouncement of the judgment or when the case is posted for judgment or it is reserved. The present case is not such an instance, since hearing of both sides is not complete yet. To put it otherwise, in matters where the case has not been posted for judgment but listed for hearing arguments of one side or the other, the hearing is ‘not concluded’ though evidence might have been finalised by both sides. At such stage, either party is not precluded from making a request for filing documents merely on the ground that the case is posted for arguments. Without any doubt, whether such request should be granted or not, is a matter to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case, by the Forum concerned. In the case on hand, from the impugned order, we could see that the District Forum, after taking note of the case of the Bank that the letters/correspondence by the Bank with the Income Tax Department are necessary to prove the defence taken by them, recorded a finding that such documents sought to be relied upon by the Bank are essential to adjudicate the main case.   On the face of it,  we see no justification in the apprehension of the petitioner that this would result in miscarriage of justice, particularly when she can very well advance counter submissions opposing the said documents, during the course of final arguments in the C.C.     As such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

             Accordingly, the Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed as devoid of any merit.

 

 

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT