NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/704/2006

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THOMAS LAZAR - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.BHALLA

08 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23 Mar 2006

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/704/2006
(Against the Order dated 20/02/2006 in Appeal No. 405/2006 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. HDFC BANK LTD.5TH FLOOR ANSAL CLASSIQUE TOWER PLOT NO.1 J-BLOCK COMMUNITY CENTRE RAJOURI GARDEN NEW DELHI ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. THOMAS LAZARNO.5 ASHIRWAD COLONY 2ND MAIN 7TH CROSS BANSAWADI BANGALORE 560043 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr.Punit K. Bhalla, Advocate for S.C.BHALLA, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 08 Oct 2009
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.

          Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

 

          Respondent/complainant was having a saving account with the petitioner Bank.  Though he had outstanding balance of Rs.17,690/- in the account, a cheque of Rs.17,000/- issued by him was dishonoured by the petitioner.  Subsequently, the amount in the saving account was transferred and balance was shown as nil.

 

          Aggrieved by this, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.  In spite of service, petitioner did not put any appearance.  In the absence of any defence, District Forum, taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct which were duly supported by an affidavit, allowed the complaint. 

 

          Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  Before the State Commission, the petitioner did not file the written statement after taking permission.  No defence was raised.  State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner had not contested the case and no cause was shown to explain its absence before the District Forum in spite of service.

 

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  In the absence of any defence, the District Forum as well as the State Commission were right in allowing the complaint taking the facts stated in the complaint to be correct, which were duly supported by an affidavit.  Dismissed.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER