Haryana

StateCommission

A/1070/2015

SANJAY KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRIGHT POINT INDIA PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

VIRENDER MANDHAN

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          First Appeal No.    1070 of 2015

Date of Institution:  16.12.2015

Date of Decision:    05.02.2016

 

 

Sanjay Kumar aged 35 years son of Sh. Rajbir Singh, resident of Village Biana, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.

Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Bright Point India Private Limited, B/92/9^th Floor, Himalaya House, 23, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director.

 

2.      New Mass Communication, SCO No.152, 1^st Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal through its owner.

 

3.      New Ishaan Cell Mart Link Road, Old Char Chaman, Karnal through its owner.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

 

Present:     Shri Virender Mandhan, Advocate for the appellant.

                   None for the respondents

                            

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated November 18^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondents.  Respondents No.2 & 3 were duly served upon but despite service, they did not appear.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the dispute is with regard to the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant and on November 18^th, 2015, the complaint was fixed for compromise as finds mentioned in the order dated October 28^th, 2015.  The counsel for the complainant was busy in other courts and when he appeared before the District Forum, he was informed that the complaint had already been dismissed in default.  Since, the complaint was dismissed in default on account of not appearing the counsel in time, the complainant should not suffer.

4.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored at its original number.

5.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, no such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint. 

6.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside. The complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.

7.      The District Forum is directed to issue notice to the opposite parties and shall proceed in accordance with law.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

  

 

Announced 05.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK