State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Virendra Singh And Others on 1 May, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 / 2012
State Bank of India
Railway Road, Rishikesh
District Dehradun through
Branch Manager Sh. Rajeev Gulati
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 4
Versus
1. Sh. Virendra Singh S/o late Sh. Shiv Pujan Singh
R/o through Sh. Darshan Lal Rayal Pvt. Ltd. Lane
Nehru Gram, Rishikesh
District Dehradun
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. General Manager Headquarter
Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan
Jal Bhawan, B-Block
Nehru Colony, Dehradun
3. Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division
Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan
New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal
4. Water Works Engineer, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan
Rishikesh, District Dehradun
5. Branch Manager
State Bank of India, New Tehri
Tehri Garhwal
......Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 and 5
Sh. Ram Naresh Singh, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
Sh. Ajay Pandey, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1
Sh. G.C. Sharma, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
None for Respondent No. 5
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 01/05/2012
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by the District 2 Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 200 of 2010, thereby allowing the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party No. 4 - appellant and directing it to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- (amount of the two FDR's) after automatic renewal together with interest and also to pay interest @9% p.a. on the deposited amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was appointed in Maintenance Division, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal on 08.03.1976 and later on, he was transferred to Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Rishikesh and retired on 30.06.2010. As per the rules of the department, some amount is deducted from the salary of the employee towards General Provident Fund and the said amount is invested in the shape of FDR with the local branch of the State Bank of India and the said FDR is subject to automatic renewal. During the tenure of service of the complainant, two FDR's for sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- were made with State Bank of India, New Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, which were transferred to State Bank of India, Rishikesh on 20.12.1998. On retirement, the complainant asked for the amount of FDR's with interest, but the FDR's were not released in his favour. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The District Forum issued notice to the opposite parties and the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that there has not been any deficiency in service on their part and the entire liability is that of the bank. The opposite 3 party Nos. 4 and 5 did not file any written statement before the District Forum and, therefore, the District Forum proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and decided the same vide impugned order dated 04.11.2011 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and have also perused the record. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.
5. We have noticed that the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that "it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the 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."
46. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same.
7. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it. The Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that "moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
8. Thus, we feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant, who was the opposite party No. 4 before the District Forum, shall file his written statement before the District Forum by 21.05.2012 positively. The respondent No. 5, who was the opposite party No. 5 before the District Forum, shall also file his written statement before the District Forum by 21.05.2012 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer 5 complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of this order.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 04.11.2011 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant, who was the opposite party No. 4 before the District Forum, is directed to file his written statement before the District Forum without fail by 21.05.2012 positively. The respondent No. 5, who was the opposite party No. 5 before the District Forum, shall also file his written statement before the District Forum by 21.05.2012 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum is directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of this order. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant and respondent No. 5 (opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 before the District Forum) seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Dehradun immediately. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K