RESERVED

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  REVISION NO. R/132/2016

         (Against the order dated 08-07-2016 in Complaint Case No.

               85/2013 of the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh )

Union Bank of India

328 Civil Lines, Azamgarh &

Branch at Bhimber-276121

District Azamgarh

Through its Branch Manager

                                                                                   ...Revisionist

                                                     Vs.

 Raj Dulare Devi

 W/oSri Ram Asrey

R/o Village Padri Farhanpur

Post Bhimvar, Tehsil Sagdi

District Azamgarh

                                                                                   ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Revisionist                  :    Mr. Rajesh Chadha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party            :    Mr. Paras Nath Tiwari, Advocate.

Dated :  23-10-2017

                                                  JUDGMENT

       PER MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT

Present revision petition has been moved under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Vide impugned order dated 08-07-2016 passed in Complaint Case No.85/2013 Smt. Raj Dulari Devi V/s Union Bank of India the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh has rejected application moved by revisionist seeking permission to amend its written statement.

Learned Counsel Mr.Rajesh Chadha appeared for revisionist.

Learned Counsel Mr. Paras Nath Tiwari appeared for opposite party of revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused records.

:2:

District Consumer Forum has rejected amendment application moved by revisionist on two grounds. Firstly the proposed amendment shall change the nature of defece set up by revisionist. Secondly it is highly belated.

I have perused proposed amendment as well as original written statement filed by revisionist. A conjoint reading of paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 of written statement filed by revisionist shows that the opposite party of complaint now revisionist has not denied genuineness of reinvestment deposit certificate presented by complainant now opposite party in revision and it has assured that the complainant now opposite party in revision shall be paid in accordance with rules and regulations of bank. Now the revisionist bank wants to retract from its own admission and assurance by way of amendment. As such present proposed amendment is not permissible. The District Consumer Forum has rightly rejected amendment application moved by revisionist.

Revision has no force and is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by revisionist to complainantopposite party. The District Consumer Forum is directed to decide case finally within two months from the date on which certified copy of this judgment is produced.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.

( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

          Pnt.