IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision:12.09.2014
First Appeal- 706/2010
(Arising out of the order dated 02.02.2010 passed in Complainant Case No. 07/2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North East), Delhi)
Rohtas Singh,
Jyoti Nursery,
Kitichen Garden,
Milan Garden,
Mandoli Road,
Near Sewadham,
Delhi-110093.
….Appellant
Versus
Balaji Chaturvedi,
Manager, Param Shakti Peeth,
Vatsalya Village Vrandawan,
District Mathura, UP.
Also at:
L-103, Agrasen Awas,
IP Extention, Patparganj,
Delhi-92.
CORAM
Justice Veena Birbal, President
Salma Noor, Member
N P Kaushik, Member Judicial
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. By way of this appeal, challenge has been made to order dated 2.2.10 whereby the appellant herein i.e. OP before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nand Nagri, Delhi has been directed to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs. 50,000/- towards the cost of plantation with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 8.1.2008 till payment and has been further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 2,000/- cost of litigation.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that a false complaint was filed against the appellant by the respondent. It is submitted that no notice of complaint was served upon the appellant before the District Forum. Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the impugned order shows that the respondent had given incomplete address of the appellant due to which he was not served. It is submitted that same is evident from the order of District Forum. In these circumstances, the District Forum was not right in observing that the OP was avoiding the service of the notice in connivance with the Postal Department and proceeded ex-parte against the appellant.
3. It is further submitted that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent/complainant has played fraud upon the District Forum by relying on documents which are false and forged.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the matter be remanded back so that the appellant be given opportunity to contest the case on merits so that truth is revealed before the District Forum.
5. After some arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that respondent has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back and opportunity be given to the appellant to contest the complaint on merits.
6. We have also gone through the impugned order. By reading the impugned order, it can not be said that the appellant was served before the District Forum. In these circumstances, District Forum was not right in proceeding ex-parte against the appellant. We have also seen the receipts placed on record by the respondent on the basis of which respondent has filed the complaint. Without commenting on the alleged documents relied upon by the respondent before this Forum, we feel it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the District Forum for deciding afresh after giving full opportunity to the appellant to contest the case on merits.
7. Both the parties shall appear before concerned District Forum on 27.10.14. The District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
8. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. The file requisitioned from District Forum be also sent forthwith.
(Justice Veena Birbal)
President
(Salma Noor)
Member
(NP Kaushik)
Member (Judicial)
