AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anup K Thakur, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition No.570 of 2015 seeks modification of the order of the State Commission in F.A. No.1196 of 2014. The impugned order is as below:
"Present :- Mr. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the appellants
This case has been taken up before this Bench because Sh. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member, Additional Bench is on leave today.
HDFC Bank is in appeal against the order dated 05th November, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that amount of the demand draft was Rs. 1,17,357/- as slated in the complaint but the District Forum directed the appellants to pay Rs.1,57,357/- that may be due to clerical mistake.
Notice be issued to the respondents by registered post acknowledgment due for 03.03.2015.
Record of the District Forum be called for.
In the meanwhile, implementation of the impugned order is stayed to the extent that appellants shall pay Rs.1,17,357/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum granted by the District Forum and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has obviously been a clerical error in the order of the District Forum which has directed a payment of Rs.1,57,357/- instead of Rs.1,17,357 as it was this discrepancy which was also inter alia the reason for appeal.
It is against this impugned order of the State Commission that this revision petition has been filed.
There is only a very short point involved in this revision petition. It is unclear in the State Commission's order whether Rs.1,17,357/- with interest @ 12% p.a. and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses was to be deposited in the District Forum or whether they were directing the amount be paid to the respondent/complainant. Further, at the time this RP was admitted in the National Commission, vide order dated 16.3.2015, the petitioner had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount along, within four weeks, with the District Forum while granting stay to the execution of the impugned order.
This then is the position of this particular case at present.
It is obvious that there was an error apparent in the impugned order of the State Commission, as it had not clearly stated whether the payment of Rs. 1.17,357/- was to be made to the complainant or towards deposit in the District Forum.
In view of above, this revision petition is allowed with the direction that the matter be remanded to the State Commission for it's disposal on merit after hearing the parties. As the matter has already been delayed, the State Commission is further requested to decide the appeal on an expeditious basis.
With the above, this revision petition stands disposed off.