Delhi

StateCommission

RP/22/2014

KRIPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KAMAL KUMAR VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
Revision Petition No. RP/22/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 12/03/2014 in Case No. CC/465/2013 of District East Delhi)
 
1. KRIPAL SINGH
LATE SH.LATESH TULA RAM PROP. OF M/S CHARMING PHOTOSTATE G-21,AGGARWAL TOWER,I.P EXT.PATPARGANJ DELHI 110092
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. KAMAL KUMAR VERMA
S/O LATE SH. BALDEV KRISHAN R/O B-84, KRIPAL APARTMENTS,DELHI 110092
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                      Date of Decision:  19.05.2014

                                                                                           

RP - 22/14

 

 

Shri Kripal Singh

S/o Late Shri Tula Ram

Prop. Of M/s. Charming Photostate

G-21, Aggarwal Tower, I.P. Extension,

Patparganj, Delhi - 110092

 

 

 

     .........Appellant

VS

 

 

 

Shri Kamal Kumar Verma

S/o Late Shri Baldev  Krishan

R/o B-84, Kripal Apartments

Delhi - 110092

 

 

………...Respondent       

 

 

CORAM

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER

N P KAUSHIK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

 

  1. This Revision filed by the appellant is treated as appeal

 

2.     In a complaint case bearing No.465/2013 titled as  Kamal Kumar Verma Vs. Kirpal Singh pending before District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi, Opposite Parte No.2 (in short OP) had not put his appearance before the District Forum on 12.03.2014, hence the OP No.2 was ordered to be proceeded ex-party.

3.        In the present appeal before this Commission, OP No.2/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 12.3.2014 passed by the District Forum

4.         We have heard Shri Dilip Aggargwal, Advocate, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself

5.         The version of the appellant/OP for non-appearance before the Forum is that he has never served with the notice and was proceeded ex-parte due to non appearance. 

6.         We do not find any reason or not believing the version of the appellant/OP No.2.  Policy of law is not to stifle a contest.  In such circumstances, a lenient view is required to be taken so as to allow the OP No.2to contest the case.  Order dated 12.3.2014 passed by the District Forum against the appellant/OP No.2 is set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- which the OP will pay to the complainant on the next date, with the direction to the District Forum that they will allow the appellant/OP No.2 to file the WS and evidence and decide the case after hearing both the parties.  The appellant/OP No.2 is directed to appear, through his counsel, before the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi in this case on the date fixed.

7.         Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance and a copy of this order be transmitted to both the parties.

 

                                                                                                                 

    

 
 
[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.