Delhi

StateCommission

FA/708/2013

AIR INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK BAJAJ & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

05 May 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Decision: 05.05.2015

First Appeal- 708/13

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. CMD Air India

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road,

Patel Chowk, New Delhi-110001

                                                                                  …..Appellant

Versus

 

1. Ashok Bajaj

    B-71, Vinoba Kunj,

    Sector-9, Rohini,

    New Delhi-110085

 

2. Bimla Rani

    B-71, Vinoba Kunj,

    Sector-9, Rohini,

    New Delhi-110085

 

                                                                                 …..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 order under challenge is dated 20.05.2013 passed by the District Forum in complaint case no. 368/12 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay expenses of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondent and Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded towards compensation.

2.             The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 has been passed without taking on record the reply of the appellant herein i.e. OP before the District Forum. It is stated that the District Forum proceeded on the mistaken belief that the appellant right to file reply has been declined and reserved the case for order on 20.05.2013. Ld. counsel for the appellant has referred to the order dated 18.03.2013 of the District Forum whereby the appellant has been given time to file reply and the matter was adjourned to 30.05.2013. It is stated that the hearing was preponed on the basis of early hearing application of the respondent. Ld. counsel further submits that no such application was served on the appellant. It is stated that thereafter the matter was listed for settlement but no settlement was arrived at. However, the matter was disposed of without giving an opportunity to the appellant to file written statement for which there was time uptill 30.05.2013.

3.             The respondents are present in person. Initially they had opposed this appeal. However, after some arguments both the respondents stated that subject to costs they have no objection if the impugned order is set aside and appellant be given chance to contest the case on merits. It is stated that directions be also given to the District Forum for expeditious disposal of the case.

4.             The submissions made have been considered. The trial court record is also considered. Considering that the matter has been decided without taking into consideration the written statement of the respondent though the appellant had been appearing on every date. The order sheets of the District Forum show that talks for settlement were also going on between the parties. However, on 20.05.2015 without taking written statement, arguments were heard and case was reserved for order.

5.             Considering the above background the impugned order is set aside, subject to costs of Rs. 15,000/-.

6.             The parties shall appear before the District Forum on 29.05.2015 when on the said date the appellant shall file its written statement and pay the costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondents and thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

7.             The complaint is of the year 2012. The District Forum shall make an endeavor to dispose it of within 6 months.

                A copy of this order along with District Forum order be sent with forth with.

                File be consigned to record room.