Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/11/1577

SATYA SAI POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKUR JAISWAL - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AMIT JAIN

11 Jan 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.1577 / 2011.

 

Satya Sai Polytechnic College,

Sehore (M.P.).                                                                      …. APPELLANT.

 

 

                        Versus

 

Ankur Jaiswal.                                                                      …. RESPONDENT.

 

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING

 

11.1.2021                  Shri Umesh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                    None for the respondent.

                                    This appeal arises out of the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sehore (for short the “District Commission”) in CC No.131/2010 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent.

                        2.         The appeal is barred by limitation.  Delay is of one year, two months and ten days.  On going through the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.  Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

 

• 2 -

 

                        3.         Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA/3, filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C.

                        4.         On due consideration, on the application and the documents filed along with it, we are of the view that the documents deserves to be taken on record as they are material for arriving at just decision in the matter.  Before the District Commission the appellant has not filed its reply as the District Commission proceeded ex-parte against it. On perusal of the proceedings of the District Commission, it appears that the notice of the complaint was not duly and properly served upon the appellant / opposite party. 

5.         In the circumstances, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.  The documents filed along with the application be taken on record by the District Commission.  The same be remitted to the District Commission along with the record of the case.

6.         The District Commission shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

7.         The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 25.2.2021.

8.         With the aforesaid direction the appeal is disposed of.

 

 

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                    (S. S. Bansal)      

                   ^{PRESIDENT                                                                             MEMBER}