State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager Axis Bank Hoshangabad vs Surbhi Dubey on 4 June, 2024
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
ORDER SHEET
APPEAL NO. 1134/2022
BRANCH MANAGER, AXIS BANK, HOSHANGABAD
VS.
SURBHI DUBEY D/O AJAY KUMAR DUBEY
AS PER DR. MONIKA MALIK (ORAL)
4.6.2024 Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for appellant.
Shri Avinash Katiyayani, learned counsel for
respondent.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.10.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Narmadapuram (for short 'District Commission') in complaint case No. 121/2018, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by complainant/respondent.
2. The complainant/respondent had filed the instant complaint against the opposite party/appellant alleging deficiency in service against it for not paying the margin money amount of Rs.2 lacs via Nodal Bank under 'Mukhyamantri Swarojgar Yojna'.
3. Heard.
4. Learned counsel for opposite party/appellant argued that the notice issued by the District Commission was never served on the opposite party/appellant. The District Commission by relying on the post office tracking consignment, proceeded ex-parte against the opposite : 2 : party/appellant. The complaint however, was once dismissed for want of prosecution, since the complainant failed to appear before the District Commission on the dates fixed for hearing and when the complainant/respondent approached the State Commission, her complaint was restored to its original number vide order dated 11.7.2022 by the State Commission. While remanding the matter the State Commission had directed the complainant/respondent to appear before the District Commission on 22.8.2022 and had also directed the District Commission to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. This time the District Commission did not issue any notice to opposite party/appellant on the ground that since the opposite party/appellant was proceeded ex-parte in the earlier round of litigation, there is no need to send notice to opposite party/appellant. Therefore, the District Commission decided the matter without giving any opportunity to opposite party/appellant to represent its version. He, therefore, argued that the opposite party/appellant was deprived of its rights to contest the case on merits and thus, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for complainant/respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
6. We have gone through the appeal memo, impugned order and record of the District Commission.
7. We find that the District Commission in the first round of litigation proceeded ex-parte against the opposite : 3 : party/appellant on the basis of service track consignment, annexed at page No. 40, in the record of the District Commission. This track consignment indicates the delivery location at Hoshangabad HO and the item is said to be delivered on this address. The track consignment nowhere indicates that the notice was served on the address of the opposite party/appellant. The District Commission, therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party/appellant, without effecting proper service on it.
8. Subsequently, when the matter was remanded back to the District Commission, the District Commission did not issue any notice to the opposite party/appellant and had held vide order sheet dated 22.8.2022 that since the opposite party/appellant was ex-parte, there is no requirement to send any notice. We find that the District Commission has committed error in not serving any notice on opposite party/appellant when the matter was remanded back to it. The District Commission should have issued notice to opposite party/appellant to appear and defend its case and no such opportunity was granted to it to represent its case before the District Commission.
9. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to remand back the matter to District Commission for decision afresh on merits.
10. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District commission for deciding it afresh on merits after affording an appropriate opportunity to opposite/party appellant to file : 4 : reply to the complaint and represent its version before the District Commission.
11. Parties directed to appear before the District Commission on 8.7.2024.
12. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(A.K. Tiwari) (Dr. Monika Malik)
Acting President Member
Mercy