State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of India vs Makaran Singh Gujar on 23 May, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.877 / 2016.
Bank of India,
Shobhapur Branch,
Tehsil Sohagpur,
District Hoshangabad (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Shri Makaran Singh Gujar, s/o Shri Bhaiyalal, R/o Village Mahuakheda Kalan, Tehsil Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad (M.P.).
2. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Through :- District Collector, Hoshangabad (M.P.) (Proforma Party). .... RESPONDENTS.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER
Order
23.05.2022 Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondents.
Heard.
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 17.6.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshangabad (for short the "District
- 2- Commission") in CC No.56/2016 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the first respondent / complainant after proceeding ex-parte against the present appellant treating it to be served.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the notice of the complaint which was issued by the District Commission though was issued to the Shobhapur Branch of the appellant / Bank, but was actually sent and served on Sohagpur Branch of the appellant / Bank resulting into the District Commission proceeding ex-parte against the appellant treating it to be served upon the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that dispute and complaint was regarding of Shobhapur Branch and not of Sohagpur Branch of the appellant / Bank.
3. We have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
4. On going through the record we find that the appellant has not been served at its Shobhapur Branch, but notice of the complaint was served at Sohagpur Branch resulting into District Commission proceeding ex-parte against the appellant / Bank. Thus in our considered view the notice was not served on the appellant and therefore the District Commission has wrongly proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.
5. In the result, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
- 3-
6. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.6.2022.
7. The District Commission shall provide copy of the complaint with documents to the opposite parties and thereafter, the opposite parties shall file reply within the stipulated period. The District Commission shall thereafter proceed in the matter and decide the complaint in accordance with law.
8. The appeal stands disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (A. K.Tiwari)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke