Petitioners must be afforded a fair opportunity to present evidence in cases of procedural unfairness leading to ex parte orders.

1. The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under S.58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the orders dated 16.3.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the ˜State Commission'), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018 in which orders dated 22.12.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Oraiya (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaints (CCs) no 200/2013, 199/2013 and 202/2013 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the orders dated 16.3.2020 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Complainants) were Respondents in the said FAs 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent(s) were Complainants before the District Commission in the CCs No. 200/2013, 199/2013 and 202/2013.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 4.1.2021. Parties filed Written Arguments / Synopsis on 3.7.2023, 17.7.2023 (OP) and 21.10.2022 (Complainants) respectively. The execution of impugned order was stayed vide this Commission's order dated 4.1.2021 subject to petitioner depositing the entire decretal amount along with Interest with the District Forum. Application for condonation of delay is allowed after considering the reasons stated therein.

4. Brief facts of the case in RP / 1047/2020, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:
(i) The Complainant filed Complaint No. 200/2013 under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act , alleging misappropriation of Rs. 1,85,499 from their bank account. The OP bank denied the allegations, claiming that the complainant themselves made the transactions reflected in the bank system. The district forum initially ruled in favour of the complainants, but the OP appealed to the State Commission. The Commission set aside the district forum's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. However, the OP was unable to appear before the district forum as scheduled, and the forum proceeded ex parte, issuing an order against the bank. The bank appealed to the state commission, but the appeal was rejected on the grounds that there were no grounds for interference with the district forum's order.
(ii) As regards RP / 1048/2020 and RP / 1049/2020, the Complainants filed two separate complaints under S.12 of the . Complaint No. 199/2013 pertained to a joint bank account with account number 1632, alleging misappropriation of Rs. 10,28,778. Complaint No. 202/2013 related to another joint bank account with account number 1263, alleging misappropriation of Rs. 5,97,523. The OP argued that the allegations of misappropriation were unfounded and that the bank system showed a different account balance. The district forum found in favour of the complainants as the OP (Bank) had not produced the withdrawal form as evidence. The OP appealed to the State Commission, which remanded the case back to the district forum for further proceedings. However, OP was unable to appear before the district forum as scheduled, leading the forum to proceed ex parte and issue an order against the OP. The OP filed another appeal with the State Commission, but the appeal was rejected