Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/17/76

DR.GHANSHYAM GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH.UMESHWAR DAYAL

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    REVISION PETITION NO. 76 OF 2017

(Arising out of order dated 25.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.214/2016 by the District Forum, Satna)

 

DR. GHANSHYAM GUPTA.                                                                                     …          PETITIONER

 

Versus

                 

MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA & ANR.                                                           …         RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR    :      PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR.  MRS MONIKA MALIK                           :      MEMBER               

 

                                                O R D E R

11.03.2019

 

          Shri Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

            Shri Girish Sharma, learned counsel for respondents.

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar :                       

                         Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.214/2016, the complainant has filed this revision petition.

2.                     Before the Forum, the complainant has filed an application dated 18.07.2017 seeking direction against the respondent bank to produce relevant documents in respect of alleged deposits of Rs.45,000/- on 05.07.2013 and 05.08.2013.  The Forum by the impugned order has rejected the said application and directed the complainant to produce counter foil of the said deposits on 05.07.2013 & 05.08.2013. Challenging the said interim order, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision.

4.                     Having considered the submissions made by counsel for parties, we are of the view that the challenge of the interlocutory order, at this stage is stalling the further proceedings of the Forum. In the circumstances, we feel it appropriate and as agreed dispose of the petition by directing the Forum to decide the complaint without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned order favour of either of the parties.  The Forum shall however decide the said question as to whether the amount has been deposited by the complainant on said two dates or deposited only once and seal there is wrong stamping of date.  This question shall remain open and shall be decided as per law relating to burden of proof.

5.                     With the aforesaid directions, this revision petition is disposed of.

 

 

            (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)            (Dr. Monika Malik)             

                     President                                         Member