NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2182/2013

TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GITANJALI PRADHAN & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. KARANJAWALA & CO.

25 Mar 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2182 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 19/02/2013 in Appeal No. 475/1999 of the State Commission Orissa)
WITH
IA/3622/2013
1. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ANR.
26TH FLOOR, WORLI TRADE CENTRE, CUFFEE ROAD,
MUMBAI - 400 005
MAHARASTRA
2. SENIOR MANAGER , TELCO.
AT P.O GAUTAMNAGAR, P.S BADGADA, BHUBNESWAR
KHURDA
ORISSA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. GITANJALI PRADHAN & ANR.
AT PRESENT VILL: MISRA BERHAMPUR, P.O KODANPUR, P.O
JAJPUR
ORISSA
2. BRANCH MANAGER, URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK,
P.S MANGALBAG,
CUTTACK,
ORISSA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate with
Mr. Davesh Bhatia, Advocate
For the Respondent :
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjib Ray, Advocate
-2-
For the Respondent No. 2 : NEMO

Dated : 25 Mar 2014
ORDER

          Learned counsel for the petitioners present.  Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is also present.  Respondent No. 2 is served on 31.7.2013 through registered A.D. card.  More than a month has elapsed.  Therefore, respondent No. 2 is presumed to have been served. 

 

Arguments heard.

          The State Commission passed the following order:

“Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is present.  Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is also present.  None appears on behalf of the appellants on call.  On the previous date, none appeared on their behalf.  So, the C.D. Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Record received from the District Forum, Jajpur be sent back forthwith.”

 

It is transpired that no litigation charges were awarded to the respondent.  Litigation charges in the sum of Rs.10,000/- be paid to the respondent, Mrs. Geetanjal Pradhan through demand draft before the State Commission.

          Arguments on merits heard.  The ordersheet seen.  The complaint was filed as back as on 22.7.1999.  Thereafter, the case was fixed for order but no order was passed.  The case was fixed on 13.1.2002 wherein the appellant did not appear.  It was ordered that intimation be sent to the parties.  Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 5.2.2013.  i.e. after about 12 years. On 5.2.2013, the respondent No. 1 was present as usual but none appeared on behalf of appellant.  The date of 12 years was granted.  The petitioner should have appeared on that day.  It shows that the petitioner is wee bit negligent.  However, in view of ordersheet, we find that the appeal be restored subject to no condition.  Consequently, the appeal is restored.  The order passed by the state Commission is set aside.  The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 11.4.2014.  The State Commission is directed to hear both the parties after satisfaction that the litigation charges in the sum of Rs.10,000/- stand paid to respondent, Mrs. Geetanjali Pradhan and expedite this case within two months from the date of receipt of this order.  The case may be taken up on day to day basis.

The revision petition is disposed of.

The order be given dasti to both the parties.           

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
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.