Haryana

StateCommission

A/636/2016

RAKESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

LOVE SEEDS AND PESTICIDES - Opp.Party(s)

RAKESH RANA

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    636 of 2016

Date of Institution:  12.07.2016

Date of Decision:    21.10.2016

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Mathu Ram, resident of Village Rampur, PO Bhita, District Ambala.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Love Seeds & Pesticides, Kishangarh Road, Deepak Vihar Colony, Shahabad (M)-136135, through its Proprietor Jasbir Singh.

 

2.      M/s Deepak Trading Company, 44-B, New Grain Market, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra through its Proprietor Deepak Aggarwal.

 

3.      Nodal Seeds India Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, 38 Mile Stone, NH-8, Besrampur Road, Gurgaon-122001, through its Managing Director.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Rakesh Rana, Advocate for the appellant.

                   None for respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Raman Gaur, Advocate for the respondents No.2 and 3.

                  

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Rakesh Kumar–complainant against the order dated May 19^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Notice issued to respondent No.1 received back duly served, but none has appeared on its behalf.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that on May 19^th, 2016 the appellant has gone out of station due to some urgent work and he informed his counsel but his counsel did not appear before the District Forum and as such, the complaint was dismissed in default. 

4.      The complaint was dismissed in default because the counsel of the appellant did not appear before the District Forum. So, it cannot be said that there was negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint by the complainant. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint. 

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside.  The complaint is restored to the board of District Forum for adjudication.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on November 16^th, 2016.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

  

Announced 21.10.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

D.R.