IMPORTANT POINT
When the party to the proceeding is not deligent in prosecuting the matter and not complying the orders for restoration, the revision application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsels for the revisionist bank (PNB) and the respondent (complainant). Perused the material on record.

2. The District Forum vide its Order dated 17.06.2014 had allowed the complaint.

3. The State Commission vide its Order dated 25.07.2016 had partially modified the award of the District Forum.

4. This revision has been filed against the said Order dated 25.07.2016 of the State Commission.

5. On 14.03.2018 both the parties were directed to file their written arguments as per Regulation 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the matter was listed for final hearing at admission stage on 30.08.2018.

On 30.08.2018 none was present on behalf of the revisionist bank even on the second call. The case was dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

On 14.11.2018 the case was restored subject to the conditions contained in the Order of 14.11.2018 and the case was listed for 22.01.2019 for final arguments on merit where the learned counsel was requested to also argue inter alia on the aspect of unfair trade practice.

The Order dated 14.11.2018 reads as below:

This revision petition was filed in 2016 against the concurrent findings of the two fora below. It was dismissed in default for want of prosecution vide Order dated 30.08.2018.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner on the M.A. No. 671 of 2018, which is a restoration application filed against the said Order dated 30.08.2018.

The revision petition was filed by a scheduled nationalized public sector bank (PNB).

The Order dated 30.08.2018 is re-called and the case is restored, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant through ‘account payee only’ demand draft within a period of four weeks, and subject to the cost being recovered by the public sector bank (PNB) from the functionary/ies of the revisionists responsible for the lapse in conduct of their case under a report-in-compliance to this Commission within a period of four weeks.

Issue notice to the complainant, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- to cover to and fro and allied expenses to be paid directly in her name through account payee only demand draft within a period of four weeks.

The learned counsel submits that the rejoinder to the reply filed by the complainant is as yet to be filed. He is directed to file it within a period of four weeks and provide a copy thereof to the complainant.

List on 22.01.2019 for final arguments on merit, where the learned counsel is requested to also argue inter alia on the aspect of unfair trade practice. (emphasis supplied)

6. Today, in the forenoon session, learned counsel for the revisionist bank submitted that cost of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.35,000/- has been remitted to the complainant but that he has no information regarding the cost of Rs.25,000/- being recovered by the revisionist public sector bank (PNB) from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse in conduct of its case or about the report-in-compliance that was required to be furnished to this Commission in compliance of the directions contained in the Order dated 14.11.2018. It was explained to learned counsel for the revisionist bank that the revisionist bank is a scheduled nationalized public sector bank, and inter alia having regard thereto, it had been specifically directed that the cost of Rs.25,000/- be recovered from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse in conduct of its case. He was requested to seek instructions on the compliance of this direction as also on the reasons for non-submission of the report-in-compliance asked for by this Commission. In the afternoon session, learned counsel for the revisionist bank submitted that a voucher has been sent to him on ‘whatsapp’, which shows transfer of a sum of Rs.35,000/- from ‘legal charges’; however, no information has been furnished regarding the recovery of Rs.25,000/- from the functionary / ies responsible for the lapse as also about the non-submission of the report-in-