Delhi

StateCommission

FA/491/2014

L.G. ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHD. RAFAT KHAN - Opp.Party(s)

19 Aug 2014

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION DELHI
Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
 
First Appeal No. FA/491/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission)
 
1. L.G. ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.
D-3, P3B, A-WING, 3rd FLOOR, RELIGARE BUILDING, DISTT. CENTRE, SAKET, N.D.-110017.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MOHD. RAFAT KHAN
R/O A-64, ASHOKA ENCLAVE-II, SEC-37, FARIDABAD-121003.
...........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: 19.08.2014

                                    

First Appeal – 491/2014

 

M/s. L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd.,

Through its Authorised Representative,

D-3,P3B, A-Wing, 3rd Floor,

Religare Building, District Centre,

Saket, New Delhi-110017.

 

………Appellant

Vs

Mohd. Rafat Khan,

S/o Mr. M. Zaheer Khan,

R/o A-64, Ashoka Enclave-II,

Sector-37, Faridabad-121003(HR)

 ……..Respondent

 

 

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.451/2013 Mohd. Rafat Khan vs L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. filed before District Forum-VII, New Delhi 18.2.2014 was fixed for filing evidence by the OP/Appellant, but due to non-appearance, the Forum proceeded ex-parte.

2.      That is what brings the Appellant/OP in appeal before this Commission.

3.     We have heard Shri Manish K. Choudhary, Counsel for the Appellant at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the Respondent.

4.      The version of the Appellant/OP for his non-appearance on the date fixed is that court clerk of the counsel due to overlaps/mistake did not forwarded the case name in the new case diary of 2014 and therefore, none was appeared and the District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the OP. In support of his contention, Appellant has filed an affidavit. There is no plausible reason not to rely and not to act upon this version of the appellant. Besides that 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 before the Forum, so that the matter may be decided on merit. We therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the ex-parte orders dated 18.2.14 in question and remand the case back to District Forum (VII), New Delhi with a direction to restore the complaint on its original number, and to further proceed in the case according to law. The Appellant/OP is directed to appear before the District Forum-VII, New Delhi on the date fixed.

5.   A copy of this order be sent to District Forum-VII, New 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.