PRAMOD HOWAL Vs. MANAGER, HDFC BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the following order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, "the State Commission") dated 16.12.2015 in first appeal No.A/15/718 :-

(2.) Petitioner who claims himself to be a practicing advocate has contended that his presence on the relevant date of hearing before the State Commission was unintentional and actually he did not appear on the relevant date because he has noted wrong date.

(3.) Ordinarily we would have accepted this explanation but for the history of this case. On perusal of record we find that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint against the respondent bank alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank in respect of statement of account of his credit card transactions. It was alleged that certain transactions which were not entered into by the petitioner were debited to the account of the petitioner. Said consumer complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.4.2011. The petitioner instead of getting said consumer complaint restored by moving appropriate application, preferred to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action being CC/11/220 which again was dismissed for non-appearance on hearing dated 4.7.2012. Thereafter the complainant filed a third complaint on the same cause of action. Said complaint was contested by the opposite party and the District Forum vide its order dated 12.5.2015 dismissed the complaint.