AMIT GOEL Vs. BRANCH MANAGER ICICI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21 (a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 19.05.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in Consumer Complaint No. 285/2015, filed by the present respondent, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant before them and on some other grounds.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant, Amit Goel filed the consumer complaint in question against the opposite party (OP) ICICI Bank, alleging deficiency in service/harassment on their part in not making refund of the amount debited from his account for the purchase of gold from the said Bank. The said complaint had been listed for hearing on 19.05.2016 before the State Commission. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant failed to appear before the State Commission on that day and hence, the impugned order was passed by that Commission on that day. Being aggrieved against the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal.

(3.) During hearing before us, it was averred by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the date of hearing i.e. 19.05.2016, the cause-list issued by the State Commission mentioned the name of the complainant as "Anita Goel" instead of "Amit Goel", although the name of the respondent and the registration number of the complaint had been rightly mentioned. When the clerk of the counsel had a look at the cause-list, he was misled by the said mistake and informed the counsel for the complainant that the case had not been listed that day. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the complainant did not attend the hearing before the State Commission. In the post-lunch session, however, when the learned counsel approached the State Commission, he learnt about the said mistake and the order passed by the State Commission. The learned counsel argued that his non-appearance was only due to the confusion caused in wrongfully mentioning the name of the complainant in the cause-list. The learned counsel for the appellant further apprised that they had tried to obtain a certified copy of the cause-list for 19.05.2016 from the State Commission, but the same was not made available to them. In the interest of justice, therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the State Commission should be directed to hear both the parties on merits and then take a decision afresh.