ORAL ORDER

Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          Heard Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the revisionist.

          This revision petition is directed against order dated 05/04/2013 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/11/209, Premnath Radhesham Dube v/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank and others; by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Additional Mumbai Suburban. Order sheet dated 05/04/2013 noted that opponent no.1-revisionist-M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank’s application to give time to file written version was already stood rejected.  Said party was also not present on 05/04/2013.  Hence the matter was directed to proceed in absence of revisionist/opponent no.1.  As far as other opponents are concerned, the forum directed to file service affidavit under section 28-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Since they were also absent perhaps there was material of service on record.  Mere perusal of this order will show that there is no illegality committed by the forum in passing the order.  It cannot be said that forum has jumped over the jurisdiction.  No other vices as contemplated under section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are, per se, affects the impugned order.  Therefore, by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Commission and to entertain such revision will unnecessarily protract the consumer complaint before the District Forum.  For the aforesaid reason, revision petition is not admitted and stands disposed of accordingly.  No order as to costs.

Pronounced on 29^th July, 2013.