ORAL

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  REVISION NO. R/154/2018

                       (Against the order dated 03-10-2018 in Complaint Case No.

                             124/2017 of the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh )

Vijayant Singh

S/o Sri Selvraj Singh

Village Ajuva, Post Bazar Gosai

Tehsil Sagdhi, District Azamgarh, U.P.

                                                                                      ...Revisionist

                                                     Vs.

Union Bank of India

Through Branch Manager

Union Bank of India

Branch Haraiya, Post Haraiya

Tehsil Sagdhi, District Azamgarh

                                                                                      ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Revisionist         :   Mr. Paras Nath Tiwari, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party   :  

Dated :  02-11-2018

                                                  ORDER

      MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT 

Sri Paras Nath Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist appeared.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused impugned order dated 03-10-2018 passed by District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 124/2017 Vjayant Singh V/s Union Bank of India whereby District Consumer Forum has rejected application moved before it by revisionist for interim order under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. In impugned order the District Consumer Forum has held that in view of relief claimed in complaint the interim relief prayed by revisionist cannot be granted.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has not been furnished papers of loan agreement alongwith terms and conditions and the opposite party is making recovery against terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Therefore, without furnishing loan papers and terms and conditions of agreement recovery

:2:

against revisionist is not justified. The District Consumer Forum has committed irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction by making rejection of application moved by revisionist/complainant for interim relief.

I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the revisionist.

In view of relief claimed in complaint the interim order for restraining the recovery of outstanding dues is not justified but the District Consumer Forum should have directed opposite party to produce documents of loan agreement alongwith terms and conditions before passing order on interim relief application,

In view of above present revision petition is disposed of finally with liberty to revisionist to move application before District Consumer Forum under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for directing opposite party to produce documents of loan agreement alongwith terms and conditions. After production of documents of loan agreement alongwith terms and conditions the revisionist shall be at liberty to file afresh interim relief application if recovery is being made in violation of loan agreement.

Let copy of this order be made available to the revisionist positively within 15 days as per rules.

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

          Pnt.