Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/38/2017

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jyotbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Chanderhas Yadav, Adv.

22 Dec 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

                                                                 

Revision Petition No.	:	38 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	18.12.2017
Date of Decision	:	22.12.2017

 

General Motors India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd and 4^th Floor, Plot No.3, Surinder Jakhar Bhawan, IFFCO Complex, Tower-B, Sector – 32, Institutional Area, Gurgaon – 122001.

…… Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.

Versus

1. Jyotbir Singh son of Harmohinder Singh, SPA Holder of Harmohinder Singh son of Manmohan Singh resident of H.No.495, Phase – 9, Sector 73, Mohali, Punjab.

                                    …..Respondent/Complainant

2. Padam Motors Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.182 and 185, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh (U.T.).

                        …..Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

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

 

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by:

 

 

Sh. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.

 

 

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

 

(ORAL)

 

 

            As per office report, record of the District Forum has been received.

2.         This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, against the order dated 04.10.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), in Consumer Complaint No.499 of 2017, vide which, on account of non-appearance on the date fixed, exparte proceeding was ordered to be taken up against the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2.

3.         Heard.

4.         Admitted.

5.         Notice be issued to respondent No.1/complainant.

6.         Rana Gurjet Singh, Advocate, who is present in Court to represent respondent No.1/complainant, accepts notice of this revision petition by filing his memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record. Copies of the revision petition and other documents annexed therewith have been supplied to him.

7.         It is stated that on 28.08.2017, before the Forum, the Counsel could not note down the date in the diary and consequently the date was missed. Again when the case was adjourned for 04.10.2017, since the same did not find mention in the diary, the Counsel did not put in appearance. It was stated that on account of the aforesaid reasons, the revision petitioner could not put in appearance and as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.10.2017.

8.         Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate, Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant very graciously stated that let the revision petition be allowed and the revision petitioner be given one opportunity to file reply and evidence/affidavit.

9.         We appreciate the stand taken by Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant. 

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

11.        Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2 shall file their reply and evidence/affidavit on the date fixed before the Forum i.e. 27.12.2017.

12.        Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost. Let amount of cost be paid by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2 to Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant before the Forum on the date fixed i.e. 27.12.2017.

13.        Parties are directed to appear before the Forum concerned on 27.12.2017.

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

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

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

Pronounced.

22^nd December, 2017.

(DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

 

Ad/rb