ORDER

Kumkum Rani, President—This revision petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as “The District Commission”) in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2018, styled as Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht Vs. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and another, wherein and whereby the adjournment application moved on behalf of the revisionist, who was opposite party No. 2 before the District Commission, was rejected and learned District Commission was pleased to proceed the consumer complaint ex-parte against the revisionist / opposite party No. 2.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are, as such, that consumer complaint No. 04 of 2018 was filed by respondent No. 1 – Sh. Naveen Singh Bisht before the District Commission, impleading Branch Manager, ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank Limited as the opposite parties to the consumer complaint and seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-; refund of Rs. 826/-, wrongly deducted from his account and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 has depicted that after service of notice of the consumer complaint upon the revisionist / opposite party No. 2, the consumer complaint was fixed for filing the written statement. The revisionist had submitted several adjournment application before the District Commission on 30.05.2018; 18.06.2018; 06.07.2018; 25.07.2018 and 24.08.2018 respectively, seeking time for filing the written statement, which were allowed. On 07.09.2018 again, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the revisionist, seeking further time for filing the written statement, which was rejected by the District Commission vide impugned order dated 07.09.2018, on the ground that inspite of granting several dates (30.05.2018; 18.06.2018; 06.07.2018; 25.07.2018 and 24.08.2018), the revisionist has not filed the written statement and today also, the revisionist has moved an adjournment application. It was observed that there is no sufficient ground to allow the adjournment application, as sufficient time has already been granted to the revisionist for filing the written statement. Accordingly, the adjournment application moved on behalf of the revisionist was rejected and consumer complaint was directed to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist, fixing 25.09.2018 for evidence of the complainant.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision petition has been submitted on behalf of the revisionist, alleging that the revisionist had received the notice of the consumer complaint, wherein “30.05.2018” was mentioned as date for appearance. Learned counsel for the revisionist had submitted his Vakalatnama before the District Commission on 30.05.2018, whereafter the District Commission had fixed 18.06.2018 for filing the written statement. Unfortunately, on dated 04.06.2018, Sh. Prakash Joshi, learned counsel for the revisionist before the District Commission, met with an accident and on account of the injuries, he was treated at Dr. Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani, where the doctor advised him to take rest for couple of months’, as he had sustained fracture in the accident. The said counsel had further taken treatment at Sai Multispecialty Hospital and Trauma Centre, Haldwani, where too, the doctor advised him to take rest. Therefore, learned counsel for the revisionist had submitted adjournment applications before the District Commission, seeking time for filing the written statement. On 07.09.2018, learned counsel for the revisionist had moved an adjournment application, which was rejected by the District Commission and the consumer complaint was directed to proceed ex-parte against the revisionist. There was no delay on the part of the revisionist in filing the written statement and the revisionist could not file the writ