Delhi

StateCommission

A/97/2015

ICICI BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TRILOK SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :20.07.2016

First Appeal No. 97/2015

 

(Arising out of the order dated 27.3.14 as well as 22.7.13 passed in Complaint Case No.235/11 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

 

ICICI Bank Ltd.

2^nd Floor, Videocon Tower

Jhandewalan Extenstion

New Dehi-110055

 

……Appellant/OP

 

Versus

 

Trilok Singh

S/o Dhani Singh

R/o H.No. B-465

Dakshinpuri

New Delhi-110017

 

…Respondent/Complainant

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President]

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to the ex-parte judgment dated 27.3.14 as well as order dated 22.7.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District-II (in short ‘ the Ld. District Forum) in CC No.235/11. By ex-parte judgment the complaint case has been allowed and the appellant/OP has been directed to refund an amount of Rs.1 lakh alongwih interest @9% from the date of filing of complaint till its payment to respondent/complainant. The Ld. District Forum has also awarded Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and litigation charges.
2.             The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:-

            A complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the respondent/complainant before the Ld. District Forum alleging therein that he was having an S/B account with the appellant/OP. It was alleged that Rs. One lakh was withdrawn from his account in between 16.11.10 to 26.11.10. It was alleged that respondent/complainant had not withdrawn the said money. It was alleged that appellant/OP did not inform him about the withdrawal of the said amount. He had lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Defence Colony and got his ATM card blocked and thereafter, it was cancelled by the appellant/OP and a new ATM card was issued in its place. Respondent/complainant has further alleged that someone from the bank might have withdrawn the same. It was alleged that four transactions were carried out in a single day.  Respondent/complainant also lodged a complaint with RBI about the non co-operative attitude of the appellant/OP and thereafter filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum.

            Appellant/OP was served with the aforesaid complaint case before the Ld. District Forum. On receipt of notice of the aforesaid complaint to the appellant/OP, its representative had appeared before the Ld. District Forum. Subsequently due to non appearance of respondent/complainant the complaint was dismissed in default on 26.9.12. The respondent/complainant had filed an appeal before the State Commission i.e. FA No.903/12 whereby the aforesaid order was set aside and the complaint was restored to its original position. Perusal of record shows that after the restoration of complaint, Ld. District Forum had sent a notice to appellant/OP. The appellant/OP  did not appear before the Ld. District Forum and was  proceeded ex-parte. Thereupon on the basis of ex-parte evidence and material on record, the Ld. District Forum had allowed  the complaint vide ex-parte judgment referred above..

3.             Aggrieved with the same present appeal is filed.
4.             Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that the complaint case was dismissed in default before the Ld. District Forum on 26.9.12. Though the said order was set aside on 8.2.13 by the State Commission in FA No.903/12, however, no notice of the said appeal was given to appellant/OP as such appellant/OP was not aware of its restoration. It is contended that no notice was also sent by Ld. District Forum also to appellant/OP after the restoration of complaint case. It is contended that on 12.1.15 some other matter of the appellant bank was listed before the Ld. District Forum i.e. CC No.325/12 and on that date the execution filed by the respondent/complainant was listed before the Ld. District Forum and on that day the Counsel for the appellant/OP had come to know of the disposal of the aforesaid complaint case by the Ld. District Forum vide impugned ex-parte judgment. Thereafter, file was inspected and certified copy was obtained and the present appeal was filed. It is contended that non appearance before the Ld. District Forum was due to aforesaid  reasons. It is submitted that appellant/OP has not been given opportunity of hearing the case.
5.             Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the appellant/OP intentionally did not appear before the Ld. District Forum. It is submitted that notice was sent to appellant/OP by the Ld. District Forum after the case was restored by the State Commission. It is contended that appellant/OP wants to delay the matter.
6.             We have  heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record including District Forum record. Perusal of the record shows that after the complaint was restored, the District Forum had sent ‘dasti’ notice to appellant/OP for 3.6.13  which was not delivered. Again, notice was ordered to be sent by speed post to appellant/OP for 22.7.13. As per order dated 22.7.13, the said notice was not received back and the District Forum had proceeded appellant/OP ex-parte. The stand of the appellant/OP is that it had never received the notice sent by the District Forum by speed post. There is no proof on record that appellant/OP was served. No postal receipt is also on record.
7.             Considering the background of the case i.e. earlier complaint of respondent/complainant was dismissed in default and without notice to appellant/OP it was restored. Reasoning given for non appearance before the Ld. District Forum we are of view that appellant/OP did not appear for justified reasons. Further for effective disposal of case on merits, the appellant/OP needs to be given chance to contest the case. Accordingly, we accept the appeal and set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 27.3.14 as well as order dated 22.7.13 subject to payment of costs of Rs.7,000/- to respondent/complainant.
8.             Let parties to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 24.8.2016
9.             On the said date the appellant/OP shall pay the costs of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent/complainant and also file its written statement. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
10.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and shall also to the District Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi alongwith record of the complaint case.

 

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

President

                                                              

 

(Salma Noor)

Member