STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                     UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                         APPEAL NO. 1690 OF 2015

                 (Against the judgment/order dated 13-05-2015 in Complaint Case

                       No. 221/2011 of the District Consumer Forum, Faizabad)

Bank of Baroda

Branch Maya Bazar

District Faizabad

Through its Branch Manager 

                                                                                                   ...Appellant 

                                                             Vs.

1. Virendra Kumar Tripathi

S/o Late Tribhuwan Nath Tripathi

R/o Village Rampur Maya

Pargana Amsin Tehsil Sadar

District Faizabad

2. Advance Agriculture Solution

Bye-pass Chauraha, Raibareli Road

Faizabad

Through Proprietor Sri Brij Kishore Jaiswal

3. Sri Brij Kishore Jaiswal

S/o Sri ram Dutt

R/o Bye-pass Chauraha, Raibareily Road

Faizabad

4. Collector Faizabad for Uttar Pradesh Sarkar 

                                                                                                   ...Respondents

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI, MEMBER

For the Appellant        :       None appears

For the Respondent     :               ...

Dated : 24-08-2014

                                                  JUDGMENT

          MR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH, PRESIDENT (ORAL)

This appeal is put up today. Sri Hari Prasad Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant is present.

Heard and perused the record. The appeal is time barred. Though an application for delay condonation has been filed but looking into the merit of this case we are of this view that since the complaint case has been dismissed against the appellant, there should be no grievance of the appellant against the

:2:

impugned order which is said to have been passed against the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. However, since it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the opposite party no.3/appellant has been directed in the impugned order to pay interest to the opposite parties no. 1 and 2, therefore, the appellant is intended to file this appeal. It seems that this much version in this operative portion that opposite party no.3/appellant shall pay the interest to opposite parties no. 1 and 2 seems to have been typed inadvertently as the complaint case has already been dismissed by the District Consumer Forum against the opposite parties no. 3 and 4/appellant. However, since the appeal is time barred and is not worth admission and such type of clarification can be sought by the appellant at the time of execution of the order, we do not find this appeal worth admission and is hereby dismissed as time barred.

                                                                   (JUSTICE VIRENDRA SINGH)

PRESIDENT                                                                                                             

                                                                                           ( U S AWASTHI )

             MEMBER                                                                                                                                  

pnt