Delhi

StateCommission

FA/428/2014

SYCORION MATRIMONIAL SERVICE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. RANJANA MUKHOPADHYAY - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/428/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 04/03/2014 in Case No. CC/174/2013 of District South II)
 
1. SYCORION MATRIMONIAL SERVICE LTD.
AB-1 KAMAL CINEMA COMPLEX,SAFDARGANJ ENCLAVE,NEW DELHI-110029
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. DR. RANJANA MUKHOPADHYAY
R/O. G-1307,CHITRANJAN PARK,nd-110009
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION :DELHI

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

 

                                              Date of Decision: 22.5.2014

                                                                         

First Appeal – 428/2014

 

 

M/s Sychorian Matrimonial Services Ltd., AB-1, Kamal Cinema Complex,

Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi

 

 

 

 

.........APPELLANT

VS

 

Shri Hari Om Suri,

S/o Late Sh. C.L. Suri,

C-31/B, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 019

 

 

 

 

                      

……………....RESPONDENT        

 

CORAM

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

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.     In a complaint case bearing No.174/2013 titled as Hari Om Suri Vs M/s Sychorian Matrimonial Services Ltd. pending before District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi, opposite parte (in short OP) had not put appearance before the District Forum on 1.4.2014.

2.           In the present appeal before this Commission, OP/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders proceeding against him ex-parte.       

3.       We have heard Ms. Sujata Rao, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself.

 

4.       The version of the appellant OP for his non appearance on 1.4.2014 in the case before the Forum is that the counsel who was representing the appellant before the Forum was suffering from viral fever. 

5.       We do not find any reason for not believing the version of the appellant/OP.  Policy of law is not to stifle a contest.  In such circumstances, a lenient view is required to be taken so as to allow the OP to contest the case.  We, therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the ex-parte orders dated 1.04.2014 and remand the case back to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi to decide the case on merits. OP is directed to appear before the District Forum-II on the date fixed.

6.       Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, Qutub Institutional Area, Mehrauli, Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor]
PRESIDING 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.