ORDER

% 25.01.2024

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission („NCDRC‟), New Delhi, in First Appeal No. 496/2018 titled as “Citi Bank N.A. & Anr. vs. Sri Ram & Ors.”, whereby the learned NCDRC had dismissed the appeal of petitioner for non-prosectuion on the ground for non-service of the notice upon respondent no.2. The petitioner herein is the appellant before the learned NCDRC.

2. The present petition has been filed pursuant to order dated 27.09.2023 passed by Hon‟ble Surpreme Court of India in “Axis Bank Ltd. vs. Sri Ram & Ors.” Bearing Special Leave to Appeal (C) no. 17207/2021 whereby Hon‟ble Supreme Court directed the parties to raise its grievances before the jurisdictional High Court.

3. It is submitted that on 18.12.2009 the respondent no.1 herein filed a Consumer Complaint bearing no. 341/2009 before the learned State Commission, New Delhi against Citibank N.A. and high-lightened his grievance that Rs. 34,92,000/- was illegally withdrawn from his account through ATM Card, bearing account no. 5136284225 with petitioner i.e. the Citi Bank N.A., 33, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar branch, New Delhi-110057.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the learned State Commission vide its order dated 04.01.2018 passed in complaint no. 341/2009 titled as “Sri Ram & Anr. vs. Citibank N.A. & Anr.” allowed the consumer complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 32,94,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from respective date of withdrawal of the amounts till the date of refund along with Rs.

5,00,000/- as compensation.

5. The aggrieved petitioner herein preferred First Appeal bearing no.

496/2018 before the learned NCDRC challenging the order dated 04.01.2018 of learned State Commission. The learned NCDRC while adjudicating upon the appeal vide order dated 12.04.2018 granted stay on the order dated 04.01.2018 which was impugned before the learned NCDRC. The stay was granted subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the awarded amount including the interest awarded therein.

6. The learned senior counsel further submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.04.2018 the petitioner deposited 50% of the awarded amount by way of FDR bearing no. 0997997 dated 17.05.2018 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the Registrar, Delhi State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.

7. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the matter was being listed for service of notice of the appeal on the respondents arrayed as parties before the learned NCDRC. The petitioner was duly executing the orders for seeking service of the respondents.

8. In the meanwhile, during Covid-19 pandemic, the matters could not be regularly taken up before the learned NCDRC. Subsequently, it was taken up for hearing on 02.08.2021 whereby the learned NCDRC dismissed the first appeal of the petitioner herein for non-prosecution as the petitioner could not take up all the steps for effecting the substituted service as directed and the appeal was dismissed accordingly for non-prosecution.

9. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that he was duly complying with all the orders passed by learned NCDRC for effecting the service upon the respondents. The contesting respondent, that is the respondent no.1 herein had put his appearance before the learned NCDRC, but the respondent no. 2, who is a proforma party could not be served.

10. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner challenged the order dated 02.08.2021 vide Special Leave Petition („SLP‟) (Civil) bearing no. 17207/2021 titled as “Citibank N.A. vs Sri Ram & Ors.” wherein again, the stay with respect to implementation of the order dated 02.08.2021 was granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.11.2021.

11. Learned senior counsel for the pet