UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAMAYAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh dated 03.12.2010 in Appeal No. 460/09 whereby the State Commission while concurring with the order of the District Forum dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and clarified that interest on the awarded amount shall be payable w.e.f. 11.10.2006 till the date of actual payment.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned orders of the foras below are without jurisdiction for the reason that foras below have failed to appreciate that the complainant Ramayan Yadav is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( in short, the Act) and he could not have maintained the consumer complaint. It is further contended that the consumer complaint in the person name of Ramayan Yadav is not maintainable because the dealing of the petitioner bank was with the partnership firm M/s Chaudhary Motors, of which the complainant is one of the three partners. Thirdly, it is contended that grievance of the complainant is that the bank has committed deficiency in service in releasing the amount of two bank guarantees of Rs.15.00 lakh each without informing the complainant. The foras below have failed to appreciate that as per the banking law, the moment bank guarantee is invoked, the bank has no option but to honour the bank guarantee and as such, the petitioner bank by making payment of the bank guarantees to opposite party no.1 M/s International Tractors Ltd. has not committed any deficiency in service.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent complainant failed to put any appearance and instead Mr.Pawan Kumar Ray appeared as proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. Satya Prakash Pandey and sought adjournment on the ground that he could not appear because of some personal difficulty. On perusal of record, we find that Mr.Satya Prakash Pandey, Advocate who appeared on hearing dated 05.02.2015 is also advocate on record and his vakalatnama is available on the file. No explanation for absence of Mr.Satya Prakash Pandey has been given. Thus, we have no option but to decide the revision petition ex parte. Be that as it may, we offered to hear the proxy counsel on behalf of complainant respondent no.1 but he declined to argue and submitted that his brief was only to request for adjournment.