Back
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.T., Chandigarh.
|
Miscellaneous Application No. In Appeal No.5 of 2021 |
: |
916 OF 2021 |
|
Date of Institution |
: |
25.11.2021 |
|
Date of Decision |
: |
31.05.2022 |
- ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051, India through its Managing Director.
- Managing Director/CEO, ICICI Home Finance Company Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051.
….Applicants/appellants/opposite parties No.1 & 2.
Versus
- Ranjit Singh Sohal s/o Late Sh. Amar Singh R/o House No.2858, Sector 40, Chandigarh (U.T.).
- Sumit Kaur w/o Ranjit Singh Sohal R/o House No.2858, Sector 40, Chandigarh (U.T.).
...Non-applicants/respondents No.1 & 2/complainants.
- ICICI Bank Limited (Branch), SCO 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Manager.
- ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051, India through its Managing Director.
- Managing Director/CEO, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400051, India.
….Performa Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 to 5.
BEFORE:
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT
RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY:
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the applicants/appellants.
Sh. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2/complainants.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER
|
Vide this application, the applicant/appellants (ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd.) is seeking restoration of Appeal bearing No.5 of 2021 filed by them before this Commission, which was dismissed in default for want of their appearance vide order dated 24.11.2021. The said order dated 24.11.2021 of this Commission reads thus:- “Case taken up through Video Conferencing via Webex. In this case, the Appellants are not appearing since 01.03.2021. Record shows that copies of orders dated 30.06.2021 and 23.08.2021 had been delivered to Counsel for Appellants through e-mail on 14.07.2021 and 22.09.2021, respectively. Notwithstanding this, there is no representation on behalf of the Appellants. Even today is the last opportunity. In this view of the matter, it seems that the Appellants are not interested in pursuing the present matter and have abandoned the proceedings. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the instant Appeal in default for want of appearance of the Appellants and for want of non-prosecution. We order accordingly. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Copy of this order be sent to the parties/Counsel through email/whatsapp.” 2. The restoration of appeal has been sought on the ground that on verification, it was found that the date was provided as 24.11.2021 but wrongly noted as 25.11.2021 in the diary. Counsel for the applicants/appellants placed reliance on A.A. Haja Muniuddin vs. Indian Railways, 1992 PLRonline 0003 and Asit Kumar Kar Versus State of West Bengal & Ors, Civil Writ Petition No.110 of 2008 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 21.01.2009, to contend that his non-appearance was unintentional and bonafide and no benefit is going to arise to the appellant by not appearing in the matter. 3. On the other hand, in their reply filed to the application, respondents No.1 & 2/complainants strongly opposed the prayer of the applicants/appellants seeking restoration of the appeal by stating that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which empowers this Commission to review or recall its order in absence of any error apparent on face of the record. It has been stated that the present application has been filed without mentioning any provision of law. They have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225 to contend that the Tribunals can derive powers only from the |
