Order No. 2 dated 22/11/2018

Today is fixed for appearance and hearing the appeal. Appellant is present personally the respondent that is manager Central Bank of India is being duly represented through Ld. Advocate Tapas Pal by Vokalatnama. The appeal is heard in presence of Ld. Advocate of the respondent and appellant personally.

Judgement/Final Order

This appeal is preferred against the order No. 16 dated 18.4.2018 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri in connection with CC No. 50 of 2017. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the appellant a senior citizen of above 80 years is a pension holder and an ex-employee of railway who filed a complaint case before the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri on 16.10.2017 against the illegal recovery of Rs. 2,45,949 from the pension account of the appellant/complainant for over payment. Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri admitted the case and thereafter due to some technical defects in the consumer complaint, the complainant/appellant filed a petition before the Ld. Forum for withdrawal of the case and the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri on the basis of such petition passed the impugned order permitting the complainant/appellant to withdraw the case. Being aggrieved of the said order this appeal files on the ground that he was misguided by some persons and was compelled to withdraw the case as he was ill advised to lodge the case before the State Commission. He wants to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. Forum and wants to get an opportunity of being heard afresh before Ld. Forum for redressal of his grievances. And for that reasons he has preferred this appeal here. The appellant has moved this appeal personally before this State Commission who mentions that due to financial crunch and various medicine cost for ailments of him, he could not afford to depute a lawyer to move his case and he urges the Commission to dispose the appeal today on merit. Ld. Advocate of the respondent mentions the Commission that he is prepared and ready for hearing the appeal on merit. Accordingly, the appeal is heard in presence of both sides.

D E C I S I O N S   W I T H   R E A S O N S

At the time of hearing Ld. Advocate of the respondents submits that the impugned order was delivered on 18/4/2018 and the appellant remains idle for a long gap and thereafter, he comes before this Commission after a long delay beyond the limit of statutory period and as such his appeal should be dismissed in limine. He further submits that due to mistake on the part of the bank official double pension amount was deposited in the pension account of the appellant and while the mistake was detected at the time of audit, the bank started to recover the over payment which is justified one on the part of the bank and the appellant cannot stop the bank from realization of the over payment of money as it is a public money. Ld. Advocate of the respondent further mentions that the impugned order under appeal was passed by Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri at the instance of the appellant who submits the petition for withdrawal of the case and as such this consenting order cannot be challenged in appeal as per provision of section 15 of CP Act, 1986. After hearing arguments of both sides the Commission comes to a conclusion that as per provision of section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the procedure for disposal of consumer complaint has elaborately enunciated in the Act itself where District Forum has the duty to settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party where the opposite party disputes or denies the allegations contained in the complaint. Here the case in our hand the complaint was admitted by the Ld. DCDRF on its merit and thereafter the complainant/appellant submitted a prayer for withdrawal of the case. The Ld. Forum had the opportunity either to dispose the complaint on merit or to allow it but there is no authority casted upon the Ld. Forum to pass an order permitting the complainant to withdraw the case. The Consumer Protection Act strictly provides to adhere the principles of fair justice where the consumer disputes should be disposed of only on merit. Technical irregularities and procedural errors should not be obstacles or hinderances in the process of fair justice. The consumer complainant is a layman who is ignorant to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Ld. Forum ought to have applied proper judicial method to dispose of the consumer complaint in the right direction. Here this Commission thinks it fit to reopen the case by the Ld. Forum to settle the consumer dispute after giving both of them sufficient opportunities of being heard and thereafter decide the consumer dispute on merit. Therefore, the impugned order under appeal in the view of the Commission appears to be irregular and liable to be interfered. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds on its own merit.

Hence,

it is ordered: -

That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without cost. The impugned order bearing no. 16 dated 18/4/2018 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri is hereby set aside. Both parties of this case are hereby directed to appear before the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri on 19/12/2018 to proceed with the CC No. 50 of 2017. Let a copy of this final order be communicated to the Ld. DCDRF, Jalpaiguri through e-mail.  The copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.