AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he has filed these Revision Petitions against the Order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 01.09.2023, wherein the Appeals filed by the Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1 Bank was heard and the Appeal was remanded to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi to decide the cases afresh ‘affording opportunity to both parties as early as possible not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order”. The learned Counsel submitted that this Order was issued without issuing any notice to the Petitioner / Opposite Party No. 2 and further certain observations have been made in the Order, which would prejudice their case before the District Commission. He further submitted that the matter needs to be heard by the State Commission as they have certain questions of facts and law that need to be taken into account by the State Commission and which has not been presented by the Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1 before the State Commission.
After perusing the record and considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the State Commission ought to give an opportunity to the Petitioner and then decide the matter on merits including, if required, remanding the case to the District Commission. Accordingly, the Order of the State Commission is set aside.
The Parties to appear before the State Commission on 29.01.2024.
The Registry is directed to send intimation of this Order to the Parties including the State Commission within one week of this Order. The State Commission may decide the matter expeditiously as it deems fit.
The Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of.