Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/37/2017

Reliance Retail Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ghanshyam Goyal - Opp.Party(s)

D K Singal & Ammish Goel, Adv.

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

                                                                 

Revision Petition No.	:	37 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	04.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.12.2017

 

1. Reliance Retail Limited, 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lock Manya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai 400002 through its Managing Director.
2. Reliance Retail Limited SCO No.87-88, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh 160034 through its Branch Manager.

…… Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Versus

1. Ghanshyam Goyal S/o Sh. Jagan Nath R/o House No.647, Milk Colony, Dhanas, U.T., Chandigarh. 

                              …..Respondent/Complainant.

2. Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO No.1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its proprietor.

       …..Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.3.

Revision Petition under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

 

Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

Sh. Ghanshyam Goyal, respondent No.1/complainant in person.

 

 

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

 

(ORAL)

 

 

            Service is complete.

2.         Sh. Ghanshyam Goyal, respondent No.1/ complainant has put in appearance in person.

3.         This Revision Petition has been filed against order dated 24.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.687 of 2017, vide which, on account of non-appearance on the date fixed, exparte proceedings were ordered to be taken up against the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

4.         It has been stated that Petitioner No.1 after receiving summons forwarded the same to Petitioner No.2, who had been in receipt of summons on behalf of Petitioner No.1 but inadvertently, the said summons were mixed up with other papers by the concerned official of Petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the Counsel for the Petitioners, when went to the Forum on 01.12.2017, was informed that the Petitioners had been ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.11.2017 and after hearing arguments, the case was reserved for orders. It has been stated that absence of Petitioners or their Counsel before the Forum on 24.11.2017 was neither willful nor intentional but due to facts and circumstances aforesaid. Prayer has been made to set aside order dated 24.11.2017 and to allow the Petitioners to contest the complaint on merits.

5.         During arguments, Sh. Ghanshyam Goyal, respondent No.1/complainant very graciously agreed that let the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be heard on merits.

6.         We appreciate the stand taken by respondent No.1/complainant. 

7.         In view of above, the Revision Petition is accepted. Order under challenge is set aside.

8.         Revision Petitioners/Opposite Party No.1 & 2 shall file their reply and evidence/affidavit before the Forum on or before 09.01.2018.

9.         Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost. Let amount of cost be paid by the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to respondent No.1/complainant before the Forum on 09.01.2018 itself.

10.        Parties are directed to appear before the Forum concerned on 09.01.2018.

11.        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

12.        Complete record alongwith a certified copy of this order be sent to the Forum, immediately, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

13.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

21^st December, 2017.

(DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER 

 

 Ad/rb