BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 25th day of April, 2014
First Appeal No.2/2014
The Manager,
State Bank of India (Main),
Puducherry. …………… Appellant
Vs.
P.Anandabalan, S/o Pachaiyappan,
No.18, Mariamman Koil Street,
Vazaikulam, Puducherry. …………... Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.106 of 2010, dated 29.04.2011)
Consumer Complaint No. 106 of 2010
P.Anandabalan, S/o Pachaiyappan,
No.18, Mariamman Koil Street,
Vazaikulam, Puducherry. …………... Complainant
Vs.
The Manager,
State Bank of India (Main),
Puducherry. …………… Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI,
MEMBER
FOR APPELLANT/O.P.:
Thiru M.Lakshmi Narasimhan
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:
Thiru B.Narasimmabalan,
Advocate, Puducherry
O R D E R
(By Hon’ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.106/2010, dated 29.04.2011.
2. The opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (‘District Forum’ for short), Puducherry is the appellant herein and the complainant thereon is the respondent.
3. The respondent herein, being the complainant before the District Forum, has made certain claims against the appellant Bank. Before the District Forum, the appellant was called absent and set exparte and the matter was posted for evidence of the respondent/complainant. On behalf of the respondent/complainant, affidavit was filed, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C6 were filed and marked. On the basis of the same, the complaint was allowed by the District Forum. No reason whatsoever was given by the District Forum as to why it allowed the complainant’s claim except saying ‘proof affidavit of the complainant was filed and Exs.C1 to C6 were marked and complainant’s claim proved’. It would be useful to extract the order of the District Forum and the same is extracted hereunder:
“To-day, when the complaint was taken up for hearing, complainant called present. Proof affidavit complainant filed as Chief examination of CW1 and Ex.C1 to C6 marked. Complainant’s claim proved. Complaint is allowed as prayed for with cost of Rs.2,000/- only.”
4. We are unable to accept the way in which the order came to be passed by the District Forum which is extracted above. Even assuming that the opposite party was absent before the District Forum, the District Forum has to consider the documents filed on behalf of the complainant and thereafter ought to have given reasons for allowing the claim. But, the District Forum miserable failed to do so. Therefore, we constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum.
5. In fine, the order of the District Forum made in C.C.106/2010, dt. 29.04.2011 is set aside that the matter is remitted back to the District Forum to decide the matter afresh. The District Forum is directed to send notice to both parties and thereafter given sufficient opportunities to both sides and decide the matter on merits. It is made very clear that the appellant herein shall not drag the matter endlessly. The respondent is directed to co-operate with the District Forum in the deciding the matter. The District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of this order. Further, the appellant Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two-Thousand and Five-Hundred only) to the counsel for the respondent herein and the said payment shall be made within two weeks from this date. If the amount is not paid as stated above, the District Forum need not hear the matter.
7. The appeal is ordered accordingly.
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2014
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(K.ELUMALAI)
MEMBER
