Delhi

StateCommission

RP/16/2015

M/S UPS JET AIR EXPRESS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. ARUN KAKAR - Opp.Party(s)

12 Feb 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                                    Date of Arguments: 12.02.2016                                            Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

Revision Petition No. 16/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 16.12.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 544/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, South-II, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

UPS Jet Airways Express Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office at:

Plot No. 6A, Shyam Nagar

Off JVLR, Majas Village

Jogeshwari (E)

Mumbai-400060                                     ...........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Arun Kakar

S/o Late Sh. K.C.Kakar

R/o C-2602

Sushant Lok

Phase I, Gurgaon                                   ..........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

O P GUPTA                              -                  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

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

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

O P GUPTA -  MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.     The Present revision has been filed by the OP against the order dated 16.12.2013 vide which OP was proceeded ex-parte. The plea of the petitioner/OP is that he was never served with the summons of the complaint.
2.      Per contra the counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that order sheet dated 09.01.2013 reveals that Sh. Ram Kumar Jha Advocate appeared for OP and filed memo of appearance. The case was adjourned to 13.03.2003 for filing written statement. None appeared for the OP on 13.03.2013, 30.05.2013 and 04.09.2013.
3.      The revision has been filed on 03.02.2015 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. The plea of the petitioner is that it was not aware of pendency of the case till 27.03.2014 when it was served with the notice of the case for the first time at its Mumbai office. The notice did disclose the stage of the case and was not accompanied with the copy of the complaint. As per the notice the matter was listed on 01.09.2014. It engaged counsel on 27.08.2014 who inspected the file on 28.08.2014 and was shocked to know that District Forum had proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.12.2013 and the case was fixed for final arguments. There was no service report on the court file. It applied for certified copy of the order and got the same on 28.08.2014 itself. The said counsel apprised the details to the Mumbai office. Since OP was located in Mumbai, it was difficult for it to engage counsel in Delhi and contest the same on merits. So without admitting its liability, it tried to settle the dispute with the complainant amicably. The complainant had been putting of the matter on one pretext or the other and wasted time. Complainant finally refused to settle the matter on 21.01.2015. On that date the OP instructed its counsel to prepare revision. According to petitioner there is a delay of sixty eight days in filing the petition, counted from the date of knowledge i.e. 28.08.2014.
4.      The respondent has filed a reply to the application for condonation of delay and opposed the application.
5.      We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments.
6.      First of all we would like to observe that there is no limitation for filing a revision. The limitation is for filing appeal. Appeal can be filed against a final order and not interim order. In taking this view we are fortified by decision of this Commission in DDA Vs. A.V.Raghwan III (2005) CPJ 295. Hence the application for condonation of delay is superfluous and seems to have been filed only as a matter abundant protection.
7.      Even if the application for condonation is taken on merits, law regarding the condonation is that courts should be liberal in condoning the delay so that matter is decided on merits. For taking this view reliance may be placed on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S Ganesh Raju Vs. Nara Samha 2012 (4) scale 152. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case under Consumer Protection Act in CA 10289/2014 titled as A.T.S. Govinda Rajane Vs. Chief Manager SBI decided on 14.11.2014.
8.      Applying the above law the delay, if any, is condoned.
9.      On merits it may be mentioned that again the law is that none should be condemned unheard. Principles of natural justice require that one should get fair opportunity to defend the case. We specifically asked the counsel for the respondent whether any memo of appearance is available on the file of the District Forum. He candidly submitted that the same is not available in the file of the District Forum. Thus plea of the petitioner that presence of Sh. Ram Kumar Jha has been wrongly marked in the order sheet dated 09.01.2013 appears to be probable. There is no proof of service on petitioner available on the file of the District Forum.
10. In the interest of justice the revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Forum for decision in accordance with law after taking the written version of the petitioner on record.
11. Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 14.03.2016.
12. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information.
13. File be consigned to Record Room.

(O P Gupta)

Member (Judicial)