Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 12]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Icici Bank Ltd. vs Surender Kumar Sehgal on 5 April, 2010

  
 
 
 
 
 
 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI
  
 
 
 







 



 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 IN THE STATE COMMISSION:   DELHI  

 

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

 

  

 

Date of Decision: 05.04.2010 

 

   

 


 Revision Petition No. RP-13/10 

 

(Arising
out of Order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum(VI), New
Delhi Barracks, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,   New Delhi in
Complaint Case No. 779/09) 

 

ICICI Bank Ltd.
 Petitioner  

 

  NBCC  Towers, 

 

Bhishm Pitamah Marg, 

 

  New Delhi. 

 

  

 

 Versus 

 

  

 

Sh. Surender Kumar Sehgal 
Respondent  

 

R/o H.No. D-71, 

 

Ground Floor, 

 

Ram Prasth,  

 

P.O. Chander
Nagar, 

 

  Ghaziabad. 

 

   

 

 CORAM: 

 

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi  President 

 

Sh. M.L. Sahni  Member 
   

1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

       

Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President (Oral)  

1. Heard the counsel for the revisionist ICCI Bank Ltd. at the Admission Stage. The District Consumer Forum declined to implead IRCTC as a party in the complaint case filed by the complainant on the request of the respondent bank, and rejected the application of the OP bank for impleadment of the IRCTC.

2. That is what brings the OP bank in revision here in this commission.

3. We have heard the counsel for the revisionist.

4. The complainant is a dominus litus. As appears from the facts of the complaint and the relief sought therein they relate to the complainant and the OP Bank, the OP cannot therefore suggest or insist that the IRCTC be impleaded as a party in the case. The controversy in the present proceedings can very well be decided effectively in its absence.

   

5. The District Forum was therefore justified in rejecting the application for impleadment.

6. Revision is dismissed in limine.

7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

9. Announced on 5th day of April, 2010.

   

(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President   (M.L. Sahni) Member                           ysc