State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab National Bank vs Sh. Sanjay Chandna on 22 December, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 282 / 2022
Punjab National Bank
having its Branch at Narishilp Mandir Marg
Dehradun through its Branch Manager
...... Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Sh. Sanjay Chandna S/o late Om Prakash Chandna
R/o 19, Neshvilla Road
Dehradun
...... Respondent / Complainant
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.S. Tripathi, President
Mr. Udai Singh Tolia, Member-II
Dated: 22/12/2022
ORDER
(Per: Justice D.S. Tripathi, President):
This appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 546 of 2022; Sh. Sanjay Chandna Vs. Manager, Punjab National Bank, whereby the consumer complaint was allowed and the appellant - opposite party was directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- to the respondent - complainant together with Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days', failing which the respondent - complainant was further held entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of institution of the consumer complaint till payment.2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as stated in the consumer complaint, are that Sh. Rohit Chandna, son of respondent - complainant Sh. Sanjay Chandna, is having an account No. 4040000100340572 with the appellant - bank (opposite party before the District Commission). On 11.02.2021, sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- was deducted / debited from the above account by way of cyber fraud, intimation whereof was given to Cyber Crime Police Station, on the basis of which, F.I.R. bearing case crime No. 88/2021 was lodged was registered by the police. On the very day of cyber fraud, intimation was given to the bank, whereupon the bank got a form filled and assured that the amount would be credited in the account within 10 days', but till date, no action has been taken by the bank, nor the amount has been reversed / credited. Several letters were given to the bank, but to no avail. There has been deficiency in service on the part of the bank. With the above allegations, the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Commission.
3. The District Commission issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not turn up before the District Commission and, consequently, the District Commission vide order dated 11.07.2022 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and allowed the same vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant - bank has preferred the instant appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage itself and perused the record. We feel no need to issue notice to the respondent - complainant, for the reason that the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is 3 ex-parte one and the appellant was not granted proper opportunity of hearing. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent may be compensated by way of costs.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order was passed ex-parte by the District Commission and the appellant did not get opportunity to file the written statement to rebut the averments made in the consumer complaint. His further submission is that the appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh on merit, after providing proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
6. We find substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. We find from record that impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Commission ex-parte against the appellant. The appellant did not get opportunity to file written statement before the District Commission against the consumer complaint filed by respondent - complainant. It is settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard. It is further settled principle of law that substantial justice should prevail over technical one.
7. We have noticed that the appellant could not file written statement before the District Commission and the appellant did not get opportunity for adducing evidence on affidavit. Appellant was deprived from getting opportunity of hearing. In the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank reported in II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the 4 provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well."
8. Thus, we are of the view that the consumer complaint should be decided on its merit, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the District Commission, Dehradun, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent - complainant. The appellant shall file the written statement before the District Commission on or before the date fixed for appearance of the parties before the District Commission and thereafter the District Commission shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- by the appellant to the respondent. Impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Commission for deciding the consumer complaint on its merit. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 23.01.2023. It is made clear that the costs of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the appellant to respondent before the District Commission prior to filing the written statement. In case the costs is not paid by the appellant to respondent, the written statement of the appellant shall not be accepted on record. The District Commission shall provide proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and proceed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously according to law. In case, the respondent (original complainant) does 5 not appear before the District Commission on the above date, the District Commission shall issue notice to the complainant, thereby calling for his appearance. The amount deposited by the appellant with this Commission, be released in its favour. Copy of the order be sent to the District Commission forthwith.
10. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
(U.S. TOLIA) (JUSTICE D.S. TRIPATHI)
Member-II President
K