NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1238/2012

SANJAY DUTT SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDEA CELLULAR LTD. & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

18 Oct 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1238 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 02/03/2012 in Appeal No. 237/2010&7/2012 of the State Commission Uttaranchal)
1. SANJAY DUTT SHARMA
S/o Capt Surender Dutt Sharma, R/o Shri Ram Kuti, Near Shiv Mandir,main Market
Laksar - 247663
Uttrakhand
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. & 2 ORS.
Ist floor,A-68,Sector--64
Noida - 201301
U.P
2. Idea Mobile Communication Ltd.,
182 Vidhya Laxmi Complex,Abu Lane
Merrut - 250011
U.P
3. Idea Cellular Ltd.,
Aarsh Deep Complex, Near Tyagi Market
Roorkee - 247667
Uttrakhand
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :
Ms. Subha Chauhan, Advocate
Ms. Parul Yadav, Advocate

Dated : 18 Oct 2012
ORDER

Order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 237 / 2010 and later order dated 9.12.2011 in Application No. 139 of 2011 in FA No. 237 / 2010 and order dated 2.3.2012 in MA No. 7 / 2012 in FA No. 237/2010 is under challenge in these proceedings. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal due to the non-appearance on behalf of the appellant at the time of the hearing of the appeal and by the second order the State Commission dismissed the application which was filed seeking restoration of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner has himself withdrawn the application filed by him. 2. We have heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for the respondents and have considered their respective submissions. The petitioner submits that the non-appearance of the counsel for the appellant before the State Commission at the time of hearing of the appeal was not intentional but it was due to his inability to reach the State Commission in time as there was heavy raining in the area and the transportation system not being properly in existence. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner having himself withdrawn the application seeking restoration of the appeal, cannot now be allowed to take the above plea. 3. Having considered the matter and that the petitioner was not represented before the State Commission and the appeal filed by the appellant has not been decided on merits, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to allow the revision petition and set aside the dismissal order of the appeal and restore the appeal on its original number on the board of the State Commission to be decided on merits in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 4. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 22.11.2012 for further directions. Needless to mention that we have not bestowed any consideration to the merits of the appeal and the State Commission will be free to decide the appeal in accordance with law.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
S.K. NAIK
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.