Delhi

StateCommission

RP/103/2017

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

VINOD KUMAR SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

RAJIV RANJAN

09 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                             Date of Decision: 09.01.2018

Revision Petition No. 103/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 06.07.2017 passed in Complaint Case No. 373/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, New Delhi-110002)

In the matter of:

Punjab National Bank

N-46, Cannaught Place

New Delhi

Through its Authorized Officer

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh                    .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

                Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma

105, Meerdard Lane

     New Delhi-110002

     Also at:

     A-4/32, Indraprastha Extension

     Delhi-110092                                             ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

 

Counsel for Revisionist             -                  Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Advocate

Counsel for Respondent            -                  Sh. V P Sharma Advocate

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Revisionist has challenged the orders dated 06.07.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum VI New Delhi. Orders are reproduced below:

“Now it is 2:30 p.m.

Sh. V P Sharma for Complainant.

None for OP.

None appeared on behalf of OP nor any evidence filed despite giving last opportunity to the OP subject to costs of Rs. 1000/- on the last date of hearing i.e. 28/4/17. In view of above OP was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.

To come up for W/A by the complainant on 16/8/17.”

 

2.         Submission of the revisionist is that the matter was listed for 03.03.2017 by the Ld. District Forum and adjourned to 10.07.2017. Unfortunately it was taken up on 28.04.2017 and costs of Rs. 1000/- were imposed upon him. On the next date i.e. 06.07.2017, the revisionist was proceeded against ex-parte. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has placed on record a certified copy of the cause list of the Ld. District Forum pertaining to 03.03.2017. The matter appears at item no. 58 of the cause list. There is an overwriting on the date.The date ‘10.07.2017’ has been overwritten to read as ‘28.04.2017’. Obviously the revisionist had taken down the date ‘10.07.2017’ in his diary. After appearing in the court on 10.07.2017 only, he discovered that adverse orders have been passed against him on 28.04.2017 and 06.07.2017.
3.         I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant/respondent Sh. V P Sharma Advocate and counsel for the OP/revisionist Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Advocate.
4.         In view of the overwriting in the cause list, I have no reasons to disbelieve the contention putforth by the revisionist. Orders dated 28.04.2017 and 06.07.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum are not sustainable. The same are accordingly set aside. Parties to appear in the District Forum on the date already fixed i.e. 06.02.2018. Ld. District Forum shall proceed in the matter and dispose of the same after giving an opportunity of defence to the revisionist/OP.  Revision is accordingly disposed of.
5.         Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be sent to Records.
6.         A copy of the order be also sent to the District Forum concerned.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)