Delhi

StateCommission

FA/574/2014

PRADEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

CARIANO NEXT - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/574/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. PRADEEP KUMAR
R/O H.No. 188, VPO HAREWALI, DELHI-34.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. CARIANO NEXT
8E, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI-07.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

 

Date of Decision: 28.10.2014

 

First Appeal No. – 574/2014

Sh. Pradeep Kumar

S/o Sh. Dharambir

R/o H. NO. 188, VPO Harewali

Delhi-1110034.                                                               …….Appellant

 

Versus

 

M/s Cariano Next

(A Unit of Cariano Telecom Pvt. Ltd.)

8E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007

Through Its authorized Officer                                          .….Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.         This is an appeal filed against the order of the District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi dated 22.05.2014 in complaint case no. 286/13 by which the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in complainant’s default.

2.          We have heard Sh. Dinesh Kumar, counsel for the appellant in this appeal and perused the record.

3.           The version of the complainant for his non appearance before the District Forum on the date fixed is that the counsel for the appellant inadvertently noted the date 24.05.2014 in place of 22.05.2014. His further submission is that when he appeared before the District Forum on 24.05.2014, then he came to know, that the matter was already been listed on 22.05.2014 and the same has been dismissed in default. To support of his contention the appellant has filed his own affidavit. A perusal of the order dated 22.05.2014 reveals that none had appeared on behalf of OP also on the said date. We do not find any plausible reason to disagree with the appellant’s version. Under the circumstances, we allow the appeal and setting aside the dismissal order dated 22.05.2014 in question and remand the case back to District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi dated with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number, and to further proceed in the case with accordance of law, issuing notice to the opposite party. The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.12.2014.

 5)           Copy of this order be sent to District Forum (North) Tis Hazari, Delhi dated Delhi for information and compliance. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
MEMBER
 
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.