Delhi

StateCommission

FA/453/2014

SAHIL JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/453/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 06/03/2014 in Case No. C-46/2014 of District South II)
 
1. SAHIL JAIN
K-112,WESTERN AVENUE SAINIK FARMS,NEW DELHI-110062
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD.
JET AIR HIUSE,13 COMMUNITY CENTRE YUSUF SARAI,NEW DELHI-110049
...........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: 03.07.2014

                                    

First Appeal – 453/2014

 

Sahil Jain,

K-112, Western Avenue,

Sainik Farms,

New Delhi-110062.

………Appellant

Vs

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,

Jet Air House, 13 Community Centre,

Yusuf Sarai,

New Delhi-110049.

……..Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Salma Noor, Presiding Member

NP 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, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1.     In a complaint case bearing No.46/2014 Sahil Jain vs Jet Airways (India) Ltd. filed before District Forum-II, Distt. South, Delhi on 06.03.2014, the Complainant was not present and the Forum dismissed the complaint in complainant’s default. 

 

2.       That is what brings the Complainant/Appellant in appeal before this Commission. 

 

3.     We have heard Sh. Amit Kumar Srivastav, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the Respondent.

         

4.   The complainant/appellant submits that he was out of station on 06.03.2014 for his business purpose and the Ld. District Forum failed to mark the presence of the Counsel. There is no plausible reason not to rely and not to act upon this version of the appellant. It has never been the policy of law to stifle a contest and wherever possible, under the circumstances a lenient view in this regard has been recommended, so that the parties may have an opportunity to present their case before the Forum, so that the matter may be decided on merit. We therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders dated 06.03.2014 in question, and remand the case back to District Forum-II, Distt. South, Delhi with a direction to restore the complaint on its original number, and to further proceed in the case according to law.  The Appellant/ Complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum-II, Distt. South, Delhi on 04.08.2014.

 

5.   A copy of this order be sent to District Forum-II, Distt. South, Delhi to keep it on complaint file and for compliance.

 

 

              

 
 
[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.