UCO BANK Vs. DILIP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. which in turn affirmed the order of the District Forum. It is not necessary for us to discuss the facts in detail as the limited point to be decided is whether the State Commission was right in upholding the ex-parte decision of the District Forum.

(2.) THE complainant in this case, alleging deficiency in service, had filed a complaint in the District Forum against the UCO Bank. None was present for the UCO Bank before the District Forum on the date of hearing, in spite of notice sent to the opposite party. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the UCO Bank on the date fixed for hearing, the District Forum went ex parte against the Bank and rendered its judgment on the basis of the affidavit produced by the complainant and held against the opposite party. Feeling aggrieved by the ex-parte order by the District Forum the bank had filed an application before the District Forum for recalling of the ex parte order. The District Forum while holding that ex-parte order passed on merits cannot be set aside by the Fora constituted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, dismissed the application for recall. Against this order the Bank went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered the case of Jyotsna Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust, reported as III (1999) CPJ 1 (SC) = 1999 (1) CPR 86 SC, wherein the Supreme Court observed that even ex-parte reasoned order passed on merits cannot be set aside by the Commission or Forum itself, dismissed the appeal and also saddled the appellant with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Now the appellant is petitioner before us.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Hemant Chaudhri, learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have also gone through the order of the District Forum and also that of the State Commission and the documents produced by both the parties. The explanation given in support of the condonation of delay application was not satisfactory, in view of what is discussed above, we do not find it a fit case for us to exercise our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and dismiss the revision petition.