State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Tarun Singh Uppal. vs Manager, Hdfc Bank. & Ors. on 2 June, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 105/2016
Date of Presentation: 13.04.2016
Date of Decision: 02.06.2016
.....................................................................................
Tarun Singh Uppal
Son of Shri D.S. Uppal,
Resident of Krishan Hill,
Near Happy Home Annadale, Shimla, H.P.
... Appellant.
Versus
1. The Manager,
H.D.F.C. Bank. The Mall Shimla, H.P.
2. The Branch Manager,
H.D. F.C. Bank.
S.C.F. 19, Phase VII, Mohali (Punjab)
3. H.D.F.C. Bank Credit Cards Division,
Through its Manager,
Post box No.339,
Anna Salai Chennai Tamilnadu.
4. The Manager, S.D/ Enterprises,
Quit Office-I, Second Floor,
Sector-5, Chandigarh.
5. Credit Information Bureau India Limited,
Through its Managing /Director,
Hoechst House 6th Floor 193 Backbay Reclamation,
Nariman Point , Mumbai, Maharashtra.
...Respondents
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Sharma , Advocate. For Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
For opposite party No.4 None For Respondent No.5. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate ....................................................................................... 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Tarun Singh Uppal Versus The Manager H.D.F.C. Bank & Ors.
(F.A. No. 105/2016) ____________________________________________________________ O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 22.02.2016, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellant's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, in default of his appearance.
2. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that the appellant had engaged a counsel to represent him before the learned District Forum, but the said counsel did not appear because of a call given by the Bar Association to abstain from appearing in the courts on that day. Though such a plea cannot be said to make out a sufficient cause for restoring a matter dismissed in default, yet looking to the fact that the appellant, who is a consumer would suffer due to the fault of the counsel, engaged by him, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the 2 Tarun Singh Uppal Versus The Manager H.D.F.C. Bank & Ors.
(F.A. No. 105/2016) ____________________________________________________________ complaint, i.e. C.C. No.12/2011, Tarun Singh Uppal Versus Manager HDFC Bank and Ors , to the file of learned District Forum.
4. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, on 14.06.2016.
5. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member June 02, 2016.
dkm) 3