NCDRC

NCDRC

FA/307/2009

M/S. CITIBANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV MEHROTRA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AMIT BANSAL

28 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIFIRST APPEAL NO. 307 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 06/04/2009 in Complaint No. 08/216 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. M/S. CITIBANKJeevan Bharti Building, 3rd Floor, 124, Connaught CircusNew Delhi - 110 001 ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. RAJIV MEHROTRAA-86, Nizamuddin EastNew Delhi - 110 013 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Appellant :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 28 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

No one appears for the respondent. Notice issued to the respondent as far as back on 22.09.09 has not been received back unserved. Therefore, there is presumption of service of notice upon the respondent. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is delay of 38 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.04.09 passed ..2.. by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. C-216/08. By the impugned order, the State Commission has disposed of the complaint filed by the respondent herein with the following directions to the appellant/opposite party:- i) OPs Managers shall offer services such as Delivery of Medicines etc. to the senior citizens. ii) OP shall make all efforts for tracking dividends etc. of investment they manage and ensuring that if and when these are declared they are actually credited to their accounts. iii) OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for litigation expenses. 4. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the directions given by the State Commission were wholly unwarranted because in the second paragraph of the impugned order the State Commission itself has observed that “though there are no specific instances or in any case no consumer having suffered on account of aforesaid unfair trade practice, the grievance of the complainant who has in no way suffered any actual loss and the mental agony and harassment can be remedied in the following terms.” ..3.. 5. In any case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as direction no.1 in regard to delivery of medicines etc. to the senior citizens, is concerned, no such direction could be given because the scheme was one time scheme for a limited period and it was discontinued afterwards. We find force in this submission. As regards the direction no.2, he submits that the appellant Bank had already made its stand clear before the State Commission and has ensured that all efforts would be made for tracking dividends etc. of investment which they are managing and as and when these are declared they are actually credited to the respective accounts. He submits that in view of the said clarification afforded by the appellant, the direction to the above effect was uncalled for. We agree with this submission also. As regards the direction no.3 for payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses, Mr. Bansal submits that the amount has already been remitted to the respondent. 6. Fore the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order and the directions contained therein are hereby set aside. However, in the facts and ..4.. circumstances of the case, we would not like the respondent to refund Rs.10,000/- paid by the appellant as costs. The First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.