Delhi

StateCommission

A/178/2015

VIJAY SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

 

Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

 

First Appeal-178/2015

 

 

        In the Matter of:

                                                                     

                Vijay Singh

          2/20, Second Floor,

          Dakshinpuri Extension,

          P.S. Dakshinpuri,

          New Delhi-110062

……Appellant     Versus   BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. South End Zone, M.B. Road, Pulpehladpur, New Delhi-110044                                                                                  …….Respondent

CORAM

 

  Salma Noor, Member

 

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

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal against order dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum South-II, New Delhi in complaint case no. 270/11 by which complaint of the complainant was dismissed in complainant’s default.

2.             We have heard, Sh. Manish Kumar, Counsel for the Appellant and Sh. Arav Kapoor, Counsel for the Respondent.

3.             The contention of the appellant for non appearance before the Ld. District Forum on 21.08.2014 is that, in the beginning of the month of August 2014 the counsel for the appellant has lost his court diary. Therefore, he was unable to trace the next date of hearing before the Ld. District Forum. It is further contended by the appellant that counsel for the appellant tried to find out the date from the counsel of opposite party but due to change of the opposite parties counsel he could not succeed. However, on verification of disposal register maintained by the District Forum on 05.03.2015 he came to know that the matter was listed on 21.08.2014 and was dismissed due to non appearance of the appellant. In support of his contention the appellant has filed his own affidavit.

4.             I find no ground to disbelieve the contention of the appellant. After some arguments, counsel for the respondent is also agreed that the matter should be remanded back to the District Forum and be heard on merits.

5.             In view of the above discussion, we set aside the dismissed order dated 21.08.2014 restoring the complaint to its original no. and remand the complaint to the District Forum to decide on merits.

6.             Let the parties appear before the District Forum on 18.04.2016.

                A copy of the order be sent to District Forum as well as to both the parties free of costs as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Salma Noor)

Member