Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/32/2016

The General Manager, Syska Gadget Se cure - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asha Kumari Jaswal - Opp.Party(s)

Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Adv.

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

 

Revision Petition No.	:	32 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	30.08.2016
Date of Decision	:	14.09.2016

 

 

The General Manager, Syska Gadget Se cure, 4^th floor, Sapphire Plaza, Plot No.80, SCO No.232, New Air Port Rd. Near Symbiosis College, Sakore Nagar, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra – 411014.

……Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1.

Versus

1. Asha Kumari Jaswal wife of Sh. Gurdail Singh Jaswal, resident of H.No.110, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

…. Respondent No.1/complainant.

2. Bombay Communications, through its Authorised Signatory, Booth No.34, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

      …. Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

 

 

(ORAL)

 

            Service is complete.

2.         Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant and filed her Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.

3.         This revision petition has been filed against order dated 31.05.2016, vide which, exparte proceedings were ordered against the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’) for not putting in appearance in response to a notice sent by the Forum.

4.         At the time of arguments, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant very fairly stated that let the complaint be heard on merits.

5.         We appreciate the stand taken by the Counsel.

6.         As per facts mentioned above, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2016, under challenge, is set aside.

7.         Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 states that reply and evidence will be filed before the Forum positively within 3 weeks from today. It is made clear that if the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 fails to do so, no further opportunity shall be granted to the Revision Petitioner for the said cause and this Revision Petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Copy of reply and evidence, in advance, be also given to the Counsel opposite.

8.         Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 18.10.2016.

9.         Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. Let amount of cost be paid by the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 to respondent No.1/complainant/Counsel on the next date of hearing before the Forum.

10.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.        Complete record alongwith a certified copy of this order be sent to the Forum, immediately, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

12.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

14^th September, 2016.

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 Ad/Rb