Delhi

StateCommission

RP/247/2016

M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARJUN KHOHLI - Opp.Party(s)

KANIKA AGNIHOTRI

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 13.10.2017

 

 

Revision Petition No.247/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.980/2013 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi)

 

 

 

M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.,

Through its Authorized Representative,

9, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001.

 

                       ....Petitioner

 

Versus

 

Arjun Khohli,

S/o Sh. Dharam Vir Khohli,

R/o 510-A, Western Avenue,

W-16/2, Sainik Farma,

New Delhi-110062.

....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

 

 

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. The present revision petition filed under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) is directed against order dated 14.07.2016 passed by the District Forum-VI in CC No.980/2013 whereby the District Forum has not taken evidence of petitioner/OP on record.  The aforesaid order reads as under:

           “14.07.2016

Present:   None for apl.

Counsel for OP Sh. Devansh Jain (proxy).

 

       It is stated by the Counsel for OP that he is ready to file its evidence today subject to cost and request it to take it on record.

 

       But as the defence of the OP was strike off on 2.3.16, the forum is not in position to get it placed on record as the fora has no power to review its own order.

 

       To come up for written by the parties on 16.2.17.”

 

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP submits that the defence of the petitioner/OP was never struck off as the written statement of the petitioner/OP was taken on record vide order dated 30.4.14.  It is submitted that by the impugned order the District Forum has refused to take the evidence by way of affidavit on the ground that defence of petitioner/OP has been struck off vide order dated 2.3.16.  It is stated that on 2.3.16, the District Forum could not have struck off the defence of petitioner/OP when its written statement was already on the record.  Ld. Counsel has referred to order dated 30.4.14 of the Ld. District Forum.  It is stated that on the said date only, the Ld. District Forum has directed the petitioner/OP to file evidence by way of affidavit.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner/OP be not allowed to suffer   when the written statement is already on record and the evidence by way of affidavit be taken on record as the petitioner/OP will be seriously prejudiced in case the same is not taken on record.
4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite awaiting.  Even on the last date of hearing, none had appeared for him.
5. Ld. Counsel for petitioner/OP is heard.  Record of the District Forum is also perused.  The order of the Ld. District Forum dated 30.4.14 is relevant.  The same is reproduced as under:

  “30.4.14

Present OP.

None for Complainant.

 

OP filed WS.  Copy kept on record.

Come up for R/E on 2.7.14.”

 

6. The aforesaid order shows that the written statement has already been filed by the petitioner/OP and the same was taken on record and it is only the evidence by way of affidavit which was to be filed.  In these circumstances, Ld. District Forum ought not have passed order of striking off the defence of the petitioner/OP.  The petitioner/OP is right in contending that at the most the District Forum could have closed its right to file evidence.
7. Perusal of order shows that the case is at the stage of final hearing.  The next date is now 19.2.18 and the arguments are not yet heard.  In these circumstances, we accept the present petition and set aside the order dated 2.3.16 & 14.7.16 and give an opportunity to the petitioner/OP to file evidence by way of affidavit on the next date subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to respondent/complainant.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the District Forum-VI, New Delhi for information.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President