Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/29/2015

V.R. Krishnakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager, IndusInd Bank & 5 Ors. - Opp.Party(s)

Petnr.-In person,

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHENNAI.

PRESENT:     THIRU.K. BASKARAN                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                      THIRU.S.M. MURUGESSHAN           MEMBER

 

R.P.No.29/2015

(Against the order in C.C.No.41/2015 dated 17.07.2015 on the file of the DCDRF

Chennai (South)

 

TUESDAY THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

V.R. Krishnakumar

No.88A/59 (N) Thulasingam Street

Perambur Chennai – 600 011.                                       Revision Petitioner/Complainant  

 

 

                Vs

 

1.  Senior Manager

     IndusInd Bank

     No.115 & 116 G.N. Chetty Road 4^th Floor

     T. Nagar

     Chennai – 600 017. Tamil Nadu.

 

2.   Chief General Manager

      Department of Banking Supervision

      Reserve Bank of India

      Regional Office Chennai.

      Fort Glacis Rajaji Salai

      Chennai – 600 001. India.

 

3.   The Principal Secretary to the Government of India

      Ministry of Finance

      Department of Financial Services

      Room No.09 Jeevan Deep Building

      Parliament Street  New Delhi – 110 001.

 

 

 

 

4.   The Secretary

      Indian Banks Association

      World Trade Centre 6^th Floor

      Centre 1 Bulding

      World Trade Centre Complex  Cuff Parade Mumbai – 400 005.

 

5.   The Chairman of the State Consumer Protection Council

      Office of the Ministry of Co-operation.

      Food and Consumer Protection Department

      Fort Saint George Secretariat

      Chennai – 600 009.          

 

6.   The Principal Secretary to the Government

      Commercial Tax and Registration Department

      Secretariat Chennai – 600 009.                                 Respondents/Opposite parties 

         

 

Counsel for Revision Petitioner/Complainant   :    Petitioner appeared party in person  

 

Counsel for Respondent-1/Opposite party       :   M/s. Sai Krishnan Associates Advocates.

For Respondents 2 to 6/opposite parties 2 to 6:   Called absent     

                  This revision petition having come up for final hearing before us on  15.9.2017 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following;-

                                                   ORDER 

 

THIRU.K. BASKARAN PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

 

                 This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned District Forum Chennai (South) in C.C.No.41/2015 dated 17.07.2015.

  1.        The facts germane for the purpose of this revision petition are as follows;-   That the learned District Forum Chennai (South) had without recording any reason and without any formal application being filed by the opposite  parties had granted time beyond the statutory period of 45 days to file the written version of the opposite parties; That the learned President of the said District Forum had in violation of the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alone signed the orders and hence all the orders passed by the learned President of the District Forum Chennai (South) have to be set aside.

2.     The 1^st respondent has filed his counter affidavit stating that all the revision petition averments are baseless and hence the revision petition has to be dismissed with costs.  

3.     The point for consideration is whether the revision petition has to be allowed?

4.          Point:   The gist of the revision petition averments is that the revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.41/2015 on the file of the learned District Forum Chennai (South) and during the pendency of enquiry before the District Forum even though there was full quorum in the Forum  4 orders passed on 22.02.2015 22.04.2015 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015 were signed by the learned President alone which is against the statutory mandate contained in section 14 (2-A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Further the grievance of the revision petitioner is that against the object of the Consumer Protection Act the learned President of the District Forum was so lenient to the opposite parties that he granted so many adjournments and extended time for filing written version without even any formal application from the opposite parties.  

5.         As regards the orders granting adjournments  we are of the view that against each and every such order separate revision petition has to be preferred.  But the petitioner has filed this comprehensive revision petition against number of orders which in our view is not maintainable.  It is open to the revision petitioner to have preferred a revision petition before this Commission as against the each and every order if in his opinion  such order was passed by failing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or by exercising jurisdiction not vested in it or with material irregularity by the District Forum.   

6.      In the revision petition in para 2 (1) the revision petitioner is challenging the correctness of the orders passed by the learned President of the District Forum on 22.02.2015 22.04.2015 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015 and of the above revisions can lie only against two orders dated 17.06.2015 and 17.07.2015 as these two orders alone were passed within 90 days preceding the Revision Petition and as regards the other two orders the limitation for filing the revision was over.  Again as already noted the revision petitioner cannot file a single revision petition against the 2 orders one dated 17.06.2015 and the other dated 17.07.2015 for the reason that two separate revision petitions should be filed.

7.     Regarding the other prayer concerning the alleged unnecessary and illegally adjournments granted to the opposite parties to enable them to file their written version the same reasons stated above would apply.  Hence we hold that the revision petition is not maintainable and the point is answered accordingly.

8.        Pending enquiry of this Revision Petition the petitioner has filed a petition in C.M.P.S.R. 262/2917 praying the Honble President of this Commission to constitute a single member bench in the absence of the Honble President to proceed with the core business and a similar arrangement has to be made in the Circuit Bench of this Commission in Madurai.  This was not numbered on the ground that the prayer sought for in the petition is alien to the prayer sought for in the revision petition and how the petition is maintainable.  We are of the view that the prayer sought for in this petition cannot be granted in this revision petition and hence we reject the petition in C.M.P.S.R.No.262/2017. 

10.       When the very same petition has been pending the petitioner filed a memo stating that the opposite parties have been sending goon to extract money from the petitioner illegally in respect of which he had lodged a complaint with the concerned police station and the same was registered as C.S.R.No.867/2015 and was pending investigation.  The petitioner wanted the documents in connection with the criminal case to be taken on records in this revision.  Hence we are of the view that the subsequent alleged contact of the opposite parties culminating in criminal cases is not connected with the subject matter of this revision petition and hence this memo is also rejected.

11.      In the result this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.  No order as to costs in this revision petition.

 

 

S.M. MURUGESSHAN                                                            K. BASKARAN

     MEMBER                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER  

Index: YES/NO