Delhi

StateCommission

A/755/2014

MUDITA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAXAMUS PHARMA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. A/755/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/07/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/171/2014 of District North)
 
1. MUDITA SHARMA
II FLOOR, 18 UB, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI-07.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MAXAMUS PHARMA PVT. LTD.
315, IIIFLOOR, SARJA MARKET, SEC-7, ROHINI, DELHI-85.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Salma Noor PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE N.P KAUSHIK MEMBER
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
ORDER

                                                                                Date of Decision: 21.08.2014

                                    

First Appeal – 755/2014

 

Mudita Sharma,

D/o D.P. Sharma,

II Floor, 18 UB,

Jawahar Nagar,

Kamla Nagar,

Delhi-07.

………Appellant

Vs

 

Maxamus Pharma Pvt. Ltd.,

315, III Floor, Sarja Market,

Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-85.

 

Medicine Point,

E-166, Kamla Nagar,

Delhi-07.

……..Respondents

 

 

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.171/2014 Mudita Sharma vs Maxamus Pharma Pvt. Ltd. & Medicine Point filed before District Forum(North), Tis Hazari, Delhi on 17.07.2014, 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 Ms Mudita Sharma, Appellant at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the Respondent.

         

4.        The version of the complainant/appellant is that there was a miscommunication of dates and court procedure between the Court Master and the Appellant.  Therefore, the Appellant could not appear on 17.7.14 and the District Forum dismissed the complaint in Complainant’s default.  In support of his contention, the Appellant has filed an affidavit. 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 and the matter be decided on merit. We therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders dated 17.07.2014 in question, and remand the case back to District Forum(North), Tis Hazari, 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(North), Tis Hazari, Delhi on 11.09.2014.

5.   A copy of this order be sent to District Forum(North), Tis Hazari, 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.