STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CIRCUIT BENCH SILIGURI FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/19/A/58/2024 SRI ARUNACHAL BASU PRESENT ADDRESS - 8, ASHOK NAGAR, WARD NO. 32 OF SILIGURI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION- SILIGURI, ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus BANK MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS PRESENT ADDRESS - S.F. ROAD, SILIGURI ,WEST BENGAL.

SBI CARD KOLKATA PRESENT ADDRESS - 3RD FLOOR, BLOCK A, APEEJAY HOUSE, 15, PARK ST, KOLKATA ,WEST BENGAL. SBI, GE CAPITAL PRESENT ADDRESS - 10TH FLOOR, INFINITY TOWER, DLFPHA, DLF CYBER CITY, DLF PHASE 2, SECTOR 24, GURUGRAM ,WEST BENGAL.

SBI STATE BANK BHAVAN PRESENT ADDRESS - MADAME CAMA MARG, MUMBAI ,WEST BENGAL.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

SRI ARUNACHAL BASU, JAGADISH CHANDRA ROY (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

BANK MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS DATED: 30/06/2025

ORDER

KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI This is an appeal preferred Under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against an Order dated 13.06.2024 in CC/ 90/2022, passed by the Ld. D.C.D.R.C, Siliguri.

The Appellant’s case in brief is that, the Appellant had filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before the Ld. D.C.D.R.C, Siliguri. But in course of the pendency of the said complaint, the Appellant had failed to comply with the directions passed the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, following which the said complaint had been dismissed, The Appellant had not only remained absent but had also failed with comply with the directions passed earlier, following which the Ld. D.C.D.R.C, Siliguri, had dismissed the Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant had preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the non-compliance of the directions was due to mis communications of the dates and was never intentional.

Decision with reason Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the Appellant had faced heavy financial loses for which the Appellant had preferred the complaint before the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri and therefore, the non-compliance of the direction was totally unintentional and due to mis communication of the dates. Therefore, the instant appeal needed to be allowed to enable the appellant to pursue with his complaint for redressal of the grievances, faced by him.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and 4, had countered at the time of final hearing, that the Appellant had failed to appear before the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, on three consecutive dates and therefore, the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, had rightfully passed the impugned order.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2 had also submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, did not suffer from any illegality.

After hearing parties and going through the material on record, it transpires that the complaint had been filed on 18.10.2022 and the date of admission had been fixed on 14.11.2022, but in view of the resolution passed by the Siliguri Bar Association dated 01.08.22 and 10.08.22, the admission hearing could not be taken up on that date as well as 22.11.22 ,01.12.22 and 16.12.2022. Finally, on 16.01.2023, the complaint had been automatically admitted, after the expiry of the stipulated period. Thereafter also the Ld. Commission could not function on three occasions due to want of forum and due to resolution by the Siliguri Bar Association. Hence, in view of such checkered history of the complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.C, Siliguri, to justify the impugned order would result in the denial of justice to the Appellant. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set aside. Under the circumstance the instant appeal succeeds.

It is therefore, ORDERED The instant Appeal be and the same is allowed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

However, before parting it is made clear that no observation made on merits should influence the Ld. D.C.D.R.C, Siliguri, while disposing the com