PARVEEN OBEROI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order we propose to dispose of miscellaneous application dated 11.8.1998 made by the opposite party.

(2.) Complaint Case C-33/1995 filed by Smt. Parveen Oberoi and Anr. against State Bank of India was fixed for final arguments on 12.2.1998. It appears that on the cause list the said case stood adjourned to 3.9.1998 as there was no possibility of its being reached. The case of the State Bank of India is that its Counsel noted the fact that the case stood adjourned to 3.9.1998 and went away and advised the Bank about the said adjournment by his letter dated 28.2.1998. It further appears that after the case had been adjourned and the opposite party's Counsel had left, a prayer was made by Mr. Vivek Oberoi, authorised agent of the complainant for preponing the case and fixing a shorter date for final arguments. Acceeding to his request the case was pre-poned for final hearing to 4.5.1998 and it was directed that notice of the revised date shall be sent to Mr. S. L. Gupta, Advocate for State Bank of India and Mr. Vivek Oberoi would also inform him in writing about the revised date. The case was taken-up for final arguments on 4.5.1990. Only Mr. Vivek Oberoi, authorised representative of the complainants appeared alongwith Mr. Ashok Dewan, Advocate. None appeared for the opposite party at the time of final arguments. After hearing arguments, the orders were reserved and the order was pronounced and despatched to the parties on 5.6.1998. The case of the Bank is that in Delhi the complainant's representative contacted the Bank and informed them about the final orders passed by the Commission. On coming to know about the decision of the matter, an application dated 23.7.1998 was made for certified copy. The certified copy was made available on 7.8.1998 and the present application made on 11.8.1998 with the averments that no notice pre-poning the date of final arguments from 3.9.1998 to 4.5.1998 was served on the State Bank of India or Counsel at any stage and for this reason the Bank was not represented at the time of final hearing. It was, therefore, prayed that the order period without hearing the State Bank of India, arrayed as opposite party in this case be set-aside and the complaint be disposed of according to law after hearing Counsel for the opposite party. The application has been opposed and a detailed reply filed.

(3.) In the reply, it has been stated that after the case had been pre-poned by order dated 12.2.1998, on 20.3.1998 the complainant sent a letter addressed to opposite party's Counsel informing him about the next date fixed for final arguments namely 4.5.1998 and sent the same by ordinary post. It has further been stated that a copy of the aforesaid letter dated 20.3.1998 was also sent by registered post on 31.3.1998. Postal receipt has been placed on record. Lastly, it has been stated that the complainant came to learn from the Registry of the Commission that Court notice had not been issued by that time and, accordingly, a Court notice was received by hand and despatched to the opposite party through speed post on 1.5.1998. Receipt issued by the speed post authorities was filed.