STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR REVISION PETITION NO. SC/CB2/27/RP/2/2020 IDBI BANK LTD.

PRESENT ADDRESS - DHARMPETH BRANCH, NAGPUR. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,MAHARASHTRA.

SHRI ASHISH S.O. SITARAM BAWANE PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO 11, MAHATMA PHULE KARMACHARI VASAHAT, RAMESHWARI RING ROAD NAGPUR 440027,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SMT. LATA W.O. OMPRAKASH KATYARMAL PRESENT ADDRESS - R.O. 118 D, PANDE LAYOUT, NAGPUR 440025,MAHARASHTRA.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS PRINCIPOL OFFICER, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI,MAHARASHTRA.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD PRESENT ADDRESS - DIVISION OFFICE 1, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, HAVING OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, GOREPETH, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD NAGPUR

440001,MAHARASHTRA.

DR. ASAVARI DESHMUKH PRESENT ADDRESS - DHRUV HOSPITAL, R.O. 227, GORELE PALACE , UMRED ROAD, SAKKARDARA CHOWK , NAGPUR 440009,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

MR. ESHAN SAHASTRBUDDHE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT DATED: 30/10/2025

ORDER

PER MRS.KALYANI KAPSE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Being aggrieved by the Order Dated 23/08/2019 passed in RBT 18/449 (Old CC No. 279 of 2016) Smt Lata Katyarmal v/s United India Insurance Company Ltd and 2 Others,passed by the Ld. Additional Consumer District Redressal Forum, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. Forum) the Applicant (Org. Opposite Party No.3) has preferred the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 where by the application filed by the O.P.No.3 seeking permission to file an Evidence Affidavit was rejected.

2. After filing of the Revision Petition, Notice was served to the Respondent.

Respondent appeared and filed its reply on 24/03/2025.

3. We heard Mr. Eshan Sahastrbuddhe, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, None for the Respondent at the time of final hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.1 (Org. Complainant) preferred a Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for declarations pertaining to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

5. The Applicant (Org. Opposite Party No.3) filed its Written Statement and also raising preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the complaint.

6. Since the Applicant felt necessary to lead evidence to properly defend its case, an oral submission was made by the counsel for the Applicant to the Ld. Forum regarding leading of their evidence by filing evidence affidavit. It was orally directed by the Ld. Forum to seek necessary permission in this regard. Having regard to the fact that stage of the case was fixed for filing of 'written notes of arguments' by the Ld. Forum, the Applicant took necessary steps in this regard.

7. Consequently on 30/03/2019, the Applicant filed Application below seeking permission to lead evidence / file evidence on affidavit and requesting to fix the stage of the case for 'evidence of the Opposite Party No.3'. The Application was preferred since the objections taken by the Applicant went to the root of the matter and to also avoid any objections regarding proof / proving of documents. The case was adjourned to 04/05/2019 for reply of the Respondent No.1 (Org. Complainant)

to the said Application.

8. Petitioner further submitted that, on 20/07/2019, the Applicant (Org. Opposite Party No.3) sought an adjournment by issuing a Letter of Authority to a proxy advocate since the counsel for the Applicant could not remain present on that day. The Application for adjournment was allowed. The proxy counsel had informed the next date of the proceedings as 21/09/2019 and accordingly an entry was made and forwarded into the Diary of the Applicant's counsel as 21/09/2019. It is thus submitted that due to incorre