NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4257/2012

REENA JAIN & 4 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABHISHEK GARG - Opp.Party(s)

MR. PARVEEN MAHAJAN

18 Mar 2013

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4257 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 30/08/2012 in Appeal No. 834/2012 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. REENA JAIN & 4 ORS.
Ex Director, M/s Nitishree Infrasture Ltd, C-68, Sector-30
NOIDA
U.P
2. Mr Ankur Jain, Director,M/s Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd
C-68, Sector-- 30,
NOIDA
U.P
3. Mr Anil Jain,,Director, ,M/s Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd
C-68, Sector-- 30,
NOIDA
U.P
4. M/s Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd
78-B Sector-D-2, DDA Flats Group-II, Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II
DELHI
5. Sh. Shashi Ranjan kumar, Ex Secretary,
78-B Sector-D-2, DDA Flats Group-II, Kondli Gharoli, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II
DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ABHISHEK GARG
S/o Om Prakash Garg, R/o A-127 Surjmal Vihar, Karkardooma
NEW DELHI
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. PARVEEN MAHAJAN
For the Respondent :
Mr. Akram Pasha, Advocate
with the Respondent in person

Dated : 18 Mar 2013
ORDER

Counsel for the parties present.  The appeal pending before the State Commission was dismissed in default vide impugned order dated 30.08.2012, which is reproduced as follows:-

“Appellant is called out in the revised list, neither the appellants nor their counsel is available. Counsel for the respondent filed objection against delay condonation application and written reply.  It is kept on record.

          None present for the appellant to press, condonation application, in consequence whereof, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, and resultantly the appeal is also dismissed.

         File be consigned to Record Room.”  

          Counsel for the petitioner submits that he went there at 12-30 P.M. but the case had already been dismissed in default.  Record shows that his presence was not marked.  The respondent is present

 

with his counsel. He submits that the petitioner was trying to delay the case unnecessarily and their refund of the flat is not given to them. 

          However, in the interest of justice, we restore the case before the State Commission subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- as costs, which will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent directly through demand draft. 

          Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 01.04.2013, who will satisfy that the above said costs stand paid and will decide the matter expeditiously.

         

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.