Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/16/243

Smt. Vijay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Daizy Sondhi - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Purushottam Kumar

06 Feb 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road,
Dehradun-248121
Final Order
 
First Appeal No. A/16/243
( Date of Filing : 05 Dec 2016 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/11/2016 in Case No. CC/57/2015 of District Haridwar)
 
1. Smt. Vijay Sharma
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, R/o Q-180, Shivalik Nagar, BHEL, Ranipur, P.S. Kotwali Ranipur
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Dr. Daizy Sondhi
W/o Dr. S.K. Sondhi, Sondhi Nursing Home, Near Arya Nagar Chowk, Jwalapur, P.S. Kotwali Jwalapur
Haridwar
Uttarakhand
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Balveer Prasad JUDICIAL MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 06 Feb 2019
Final Order / Judgement

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred against the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 57 of 2015; Smt. Vijay Sharma Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Daizy Sondhi and another.

By the order impugned, the learned President of the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint, whereas the Male Member of the District Forum per his dissenting order of the even date, has allowed the consumer complaint, thereby directing the respondent No. 1 – opposite party No. 1 to pay compensation of    Rs. 17,20,000/- to the appellant – complainant.  Since there was no majority order passed by the District Forum in the consumer complaint instituted by the appellant – complainant, the complainant has come up in this appeal before this Commission.

As is evident from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Forum, there was no majority opinion of the District Forum and both the learned President and the Male Member of the District Forum were of the dissenting view and have rendered different orders, one has dismissed the consumer complaint, while the other has allowed the consumer complaint.

Since there was no definite opinion of the District Forum and there was no majority order of the District Forum and none of the order impugned was passed by atleast the two out of three Members constituting the Bench of the District Forum and hence on this score alone, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is non-est in the eyes of law and can not be legally sustained and is liable to be set aside.  Thus, the appeal is fit to be allowed and the matter need to be remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law.

For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed.  Order impugned dated 08.11.2016 passed by the District Forum is set aside.  The matter is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh on merit in accordance with law.  The District Forum is directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months’.  The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 06.03.2019.  The record of the District Forum be sent back forthwith.  The parties shall bear their own costs.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Balveer Prasad]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma]
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.