NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1656/2012

SHIV NARAIN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AJAY PAUL

07 Nov 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1656 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 26/05/2011 in Appeal No. 393/2010 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. SHIV NARAIN GUPTA
S/o Late Sh Ram Chander Gupta B-161 Serctor- 26
Noida - 201301
U.P
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Through its Chairman (SFS) Vikas Sadan,I.N.A.
New Delhi
Delhi
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. AJAY PAUL
For the Respondent :MR. PRADUMAN KUMAR AGGARWAL

Dated : 07 Nov 2012
ORDER

Orders dated 26.05.2011 and 09.01.2012 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 393/2010 are under challenge in these proceedings. By the order dated 26.5.2011, the appeal filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed due to the default in appearance of the appellant or his counsel. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application seeking restoration of the said appeal which application was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 9.1.2012 holding that it had no jurisdiction to restore the appeal which was dismissed in default. 2. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he could not reach the State Commission on time when the appeal was taken-up for hearing and reached a litter late, therefore, the appeal came to be dismissed. On the other hand counsel for the respondent submits that the revision petition is highly belated inasmuch as it is filed after undue delay of more than 200 days of the passing of the order, i.e., 26.5.2011 besides he submits that there is no justification for allowing the revision petition and restoration of the appeal. 3. Having considered the above circumstances and the fact that the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the State Commission even when no notice had been issued to the other side. Since the non-appearance of the appellant or his counsel is satisfactorily explained and since appeal filed by the petitioner has not been answered on merits, we in the interest of justice, consider it expedient to restore the appeal on the Board of the State Commission to be decided on merits in accordance with law which will be subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioner by way of a demand draft in favour of onsumer Legal Aid Accountof this Commission within four weeks. 3. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.12.2012 for further directions. Revision petition stands allowed in above terms.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING 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.