N.KANNADASAN, J. - (1.) The above appeal is filed against order dt.21.9.2001 of the District Forum, Chennai (South). The appellant is the opposite party before the District Forum, respondent is the complainant.
(2.) The complaint is filed by the respondent / complainant claiming compensation as against the appellant / opposite party for the deficiency in service. The District Forum allowed the complaint; on the ground that opposite party has not contested the case and remained exparte. In the present appeal, the learned counsel for appellant explained that due to unforeseen circumstances, the appellant has not received the information in time from the concerned officers of the bank. That apart, it is seen that the appellant / opposite party is none else than the Managing Director of the opposite party bank, whose office is at Mumbai. The complaint is filed contending deficiency in service on the part of the bank. However, the Managing Director is made as opposite party in his individual capacity. The address of the Managing Director is shows as if his office is located at Chennai, whereas, his office is located at Mumbai. It is also not in dispute that the complaint itself is a time bared one.
(3.) In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the District Forum. However, an opportunity is given to the complainant to file appropriate complaint before the appropriate Forum, if he is so advised as against the bank. The time consumed in the present litigation shall stand in the way in calculating the period of limitation.;