National Consumer Disputes Redressal
S.P. Singh vs Union Bank Of India & Anr. on 27 January, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 293 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 09/12/2015 in Complaint No. 05/2011 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. S.P. SINGH S/O. RAM CHHABILA SINGH, R/O. PATLIPUTRA, NEAR MOPKA PETROL PUMP, SEEPAT ROAD, P.S. SARKANDA BILASPUR, DISTRICT-BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR. THROUGH THE BANK MANAGER, BRANCH TRANSPORT NAGAR, KORBA, DISTRICT-KORBA CHHATTISGARH 2. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK OF INDIA, 239 VIDHAN BHAWAN ROAD, CENTRAL OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Shivraj Singh, advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vipin Pillai, advocate
Dated : 27 Jan 2017 ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the appellant against order dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 05 of 2011 - S.P. Singh Vs. Union Bank of India, by which complaint was dismissed in default.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant filed complaint against opposite party /respondent and during course of proceedings by order dated 21.08.2015 complainant was permitted to take answer on interrogatories from hand-writing expert and matter was adjourned to 30th October, 2015. Complainant neither appeared on 30th October, 2015 nor on next date i.e. 09-12-2015 nor submitted interrogatories to the hand-writing expert and complaint was dismissed by default by impugned order against which this appeal has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
4. As far delay is concerned there is delay of 30 days in filing appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant earlier approached to High Court and his writ petition was dismissed by order dated 08.03.2016 and later on this appeal was filed on 01.04.2016 and delay may be condoned. There is reasonable explanation for condonation of delay as appellant approached to High Court instead of this Commission. In such circumstances, for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing appeal stands condoned.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as appellant reached Commission on 30th October, 2015 after adjournment and noted down wrong date, so he could not appear before State Commission on 09.02.2015 and complaint was dismissed in default which may be restored. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as complainant was not present before State Commission on 30th October, 2015 there was no question of recording wrong date and he also did appear on 09.12.2015 and did not submit interrogatories, so order passed by State Commission is in accordance with law, hence appeal be dismissed.
6. Perusal of order dated 21st October, 2015 reveals that matter was adjourned to 30th October, 2015 with direction to the complainant to submit interrogatories to hand-writing expert. Perusal of order dated 30th October, 2015 reveals that complainant neither appeared before State Commission nor submitted interrogatories to hand-writing expert. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant' counsel appeared before State Commission after adjournment of case but by inadvertence he recorded wrong date of 19.01.2016 instead of 09.12.2015 so could not appear before State Commission.
7. As complainant could not appear before State Commission on account of noting down wrong date, it would be appropriate to allow appeal and restore complaint at its original stage for further proceedings but it can be observed that complainant failed to submit interrogatories to hand-writing expert on 30th October, 2015 whereas before this date he was supposed to file interrogatories. In such circumstances, cost is to be imposed on the appellant for non-compliance of the direction and for non-appearance.
8. Consequently, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and impugned order dated 09.12.2015 passed by learned State Commission in Complaint No. 05 of 2011 - S.P. Singh Vs. Union Bank of India, is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- by the appellant to Legal Fund of the State Commission on or before next date of hearing and complaint is restored at its original number. Last opportunity is granted to the complainant to submit interrogatories to hand-wiring expert as directed by learned State Commission by order dated 30th October 2015.
9. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 08.03.2017.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER