Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Chairman Anr Managing Director ... vs Sudesh Attel on 21 January, 2019

Author: R.K. Agrawal

Bench: R.K. Agrawal

          NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 139 OF 2019     (Against the Order dated 09/05/2018 in Appeal No. 1186/2017    of the State Commission Haryana)        1. CHAIRMAN ANR MANAGING DIRECTOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA  THROUGH RAJANI PANDEY, BRANCH HEAD IDBI BANK LTD., 51/3, OPP. KHALSA COLLEGE DESH BANDHU GUPTA ROAD, KAROL BAGH   NEW DELHI-110005 ...........Petitioner(s)  Versus        1. SUDESH ATTEL   W/O. SHRI DILBAGH, R/O. VILLAGE HASSANPUR, TEHSIL AND   DISTIRCT-SONIPAT  HARYANA ...........Respondent(s) 

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumnesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :

 Dated : 21 Jan 2019  	    ORDER    	    

 IA No. 1008 of 2019 (Condonation of delay)

 

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

 

The delay has sufficiently been explained.  Accordingly, it is condoned and the Revision Petition is treated to have been filed within the limitation period.

The Application stands disposed of.

Revision Petition           Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 09.05.2018, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby the Appeal, preferred by the Petitioner, has been dismissed.

          The State Commission has recorded a categorical finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.  The finding recorded by the State Commission in Para-4 of the impugned order is reproduced below:

"4.      The plea of the learned counsel for the IDBI is not tenable in view of the fact that the IDBI paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.23,562/- on October 21st, 2016 to the complainant vide statement of account (Annexure A-9), that is, after a period of 17 years whereas the complainant was entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-.  Thus, no interference is required in the impugned order.  The Appeal is dismissed."
 

          The said finding is based on appreciation of material on record and does not call for any interference in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

          The Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.  

  ......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER