Delhi

StateCommission

FA/130/2014

MOHINDRA FIRST CHOICE AUTOMOTIVE INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KATYAYANI SHUKLA - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/130/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/01/2014 in Case No. CC/209/2013 of District New Delhi)
 
1. MOHINDRA FIRST CHOICE AUTOMOTIVE INDIA
111/9 ,KISHANGARH ARUNA ASAF ALI MARG, NEAR SAHARA RESTAURANT VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. KATYAYANI SHUKLA
R/O C8/8329 VASANTKUNJ NEW DELHI 110070
...........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:  22.05.2014

                                                                                           

First Appeal NO. 130/2014

 

 

Mahindra First Choice Automotives India

111/9, Kishangarh, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg,

Near Sahara Restaurant, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi - 110070

 

 

     .........Appellant

VS

 

 

 

Katyayani Shukla,

R/o C8/8329

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070

 

 

………...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.     In a complaint case bearing No.209/2013 titled as Mahindra First Choice Automotives India Vs. Katyayani Shukla, filed before District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Phase – II, Delhi, Opposite Parte (in short OP) had not put his appearance on 30.09.2013 , hence the OP was ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

2.        In the present appeal before this Commission, OP/Appellant has prayed for setting aside the orders dated 30.9.2013 passed by the District Forum.

3.         We have heard Shri Sachin Sangwan, Advocate, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself.

4.         The version of the appellant/complainant for non-appearance on 30.09.13 in the case before the Forum is that, the Munshi of the counsel had wrongly jotted down the date as 26.12.2013 in place of 30.09.13.  The counsel appeared on 26.12.13 before the Forum and came to know that the matter was listed for 17.02.2014 and was proceeded ex-parte due to non appearance.

5.         We do not find any reason or not believing the version of the appellant/OP.  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 to contest the case on merits.  Order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the District Forum against the appellant/OP 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 to file the WS and evidence and decide the case after hearing both the parties.  The appellant is directed to appear, through his counsel, before the District Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Phase – II, Delhi in this case on the date fixed.

6.         Copy of this order be sent to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai, Phase – II, 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.