State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., vs 1. Pravin Devidas Pawar on 3 July, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 218-11
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 21.04.2011
Date of Order: 03.07.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 218 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 275 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD.
Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd.,
Branch Office Manjeet Nagar,
Shivani Chambers, Opposite
Akashwani, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Pravin Devidas Pawar
R/o. Deogaon Rangari,
Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Railway Station Road,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Sominath s/o. Kachru Nikalji
R/o. Suli Bhanjan, Tq. Khultabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. B. A.Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member Present: Shri. S. P. Kumthekar, representative of Adv. Shri. M. V. Nagargoje for Respondent-1. Smt. Madhduri Banait, representative of Respondent-2. None present for Respondent-3.
2 F.A.No.: 218-11- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member
1. The counsel for the appellant is not present. Shri. S. P. Kumthekar, representative of the bank is present. Adv. Shri. M. V. Nagargoje present for Respondent-1. Smt. Madhduri Banait, representative of Respondent-2 is present. None present for Respondent-3. Perusal of the daily proceeding reveals that, the appeal was first taken on board for hearing on 05.05.2011 and since then it came to be adjourned on 28.07.2011, 28.09.2011, 15.12.2011, 27.02.2012, and 18.04.2012 and today on 03.07.2012. The period of more than one year has been lapsed and there is no progress in this case. It is further revealed that the counsel for the appellant has been absent on 28.07.2011, 28.09.2011, 27.02.2012, 18.04.2012 and also today on 03.07.2012. It is also observed that, on 27.02.2012 adjournment was granted to the appellant subject to the cost of Rs.500/- to be paid in the legal aid account of this Commission, within two weeks. However, the same amount has not been deposited by the appellant. Thereafter on 18.04.2012 again the case was adjourned on the request of appellant subject to the cost of Rs.500/- to be deposited in the legal aid account of this Commission. However, said cost also not been deposited. It is also the grievance of the Respondent-2 that, he had not received appeal memo and annexure as yet, in spite of the direction given from time to time by this Commission. Today again the representative of the bank Shri. Kumthekar seeks adjournment. It appears that the appellant bank only intends to prolong the matter. We are therefore satisfied that the appellant bank is not interested in pursuing the matter and hence appeal is dismissed in default.
(K. B. Gawali) (B. A. Shaikh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
3 F.A.No.: 218-11
Kalyankar