Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/15/67

Dr. Dig Vijay Lal Rewal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Housingh Commissioner/ Secretary Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parisad and another - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. D. Ahluwlia

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road,
Dehradun-248121
Final Order
 
First Appeal No. A/15/67
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/03/2015 in Case No. 27/2002 of District Dehradun)
 
1. Dr. Dig Vijay Lal Rewal
s/o Tara Chnad Rewal r/o H.No. 42-A Vijay Park near Ballupur Road, formely IOFS, Additional General Manager, Ammunition Factory, Khadki
Pune
Maharstra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Housingh Commissioner/ Secretary Uttar Pradesh Avas Vikas Parisad and another
104 Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Veena Sharma MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

ORDER

 

Per: Justice B.S. Verma, President (Oral):

                                                       

            This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 27 of 2002;   Dr. Dig Vijay Lal Rewal vs. Housing Commissioner / Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Avas & Vikas Parishad and another, whereby the District Forum has dismissed the consumer complaint.

 

2.       According to the appellant, on 25.03.2015 neither the complainant nor the opposite parties were present before the District Forum.  The District Forum on its own after perusal of the evidence available on the record, dismissed the consumer complaint. In the appeal specific ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the appellant that on 25.03.2015 when the consumer complaint was fixed for final argument, his wife met with an accident, therefore, an adjournment application was moved in the said case and endorsement was also made by the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  In support of his contention an affidavit has also been filed by the counsel for the appellant and an affidavit of Sh. Virender Srivastava, Advocate, who had gone to file the adjournment application. The adjournment application was not accepted by the District Forum for the reason since none of the parties were present when the case was called for hearing and decide the complaint in absence of parties on its own.

3.       By perusal of the impugned order, it is amply clear that none of the counsel for the parties were present before the District Forum and they could not submit their arguments, the District Forum, without hearing the counsels for the parties and passed the impugned order. The factum of accident of wife of counsel for the appellant has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents and the application for adjournment was moved after getting endorsement on application.  Therefore, in the interest of justice without entering into the merit of case, we set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum and remanded the case back to the District Forum, Dehradun to be decided afresh after hearing learned counsel for both the parties on merit.

4.       The District Forum, Dehradun is also directed that the consumer complaint be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months as far as possible. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Dehradun immediately.  No order as to costs.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. Verma]
PRESIDENT
 
[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.