Case: SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY Vs. UCO BANK AND OTHERS

1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant calls in question the order of the High Court, by which the learned single Judge, according to the appellant, has made observations against him which are unwarranted, both on facts and in law. 3. The appellant is a Judicial Member of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal. According to the appellant, in a case filed against the first respondent-bank on account of non-appearance on behalf of the first respondent-bank, the bank came to be proceeded ex-parte. 4. The case of the first respondent was that though it had approached by filing vakalatnama and seeking to set aside the order which was passed ex-parte, it was not being heeded to. 5. The complaint of the appellant is that the learned single Judge without appreciating the true state of facts and law, has made observations against him. The learned counsel would submit that on authorities, such observations were uncalled for. He would submit that the case of the appellant is that there is no power to set aside ex-parte order, as far as the State Commission is concerned. The amendment which was brought about only empowered the National Commission under Section 22A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 6. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 7. We are of the view that there is merit in the case of the appellant. The observations which have been made against the appellant herein appear to have been unjustified having regard to the actual statutory provisions contained in the Act in question, as interpreted by this Court in a three-Judge Bench decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541.

Decision:
1[ds]6. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.7. We are of the view that there is merit in the case of the appellant. The observations which have been made against the appellant herein appear to have been unjustified having regard to the actual statutory provisions contained in the Act in question, as interpreted by this Court in a three-Judge Bench decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541.