Delhi

StateCommission

A/762/2014

3 I INFOTECH LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. J.P. JAIN - 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/762/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. CC/498/2013 of District South II)
 
1. 3 I INFOTECH LTD.
ICICI BANK TOWER, BHISHM PITAMAH MARG, PRAGATI VIHAR, DELHI-110003.
2. THE DIRECTOR 3 I INFOTECH LTD.
TOWER NO 5, 3rd FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL INFOTECH PARK, VASI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASI-NAVI, MUMBAI-400703.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. MR. J.P. JAIN
KRISHNA HALI No.1, MAUJPUR DELHI-110053.
...........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 – 762/2014

 

  1. 3 I Infotech Limited,

ICICI Bank Tower,

Bhishm Pitamah Marg,

Pragati Vihar,

Delhi-110003.

 

  1. The Director 3 I Infotech Limited,

Tower No 5, 3rd Floor,

International Infotech Park,

Vasi Railway Station Complex,

Vasi-Navi, Mumbai-400703.

 

………Appellant

Vs

Mr. J.P. Jain 194,

Krishna Gali No 1,

Maujpur, Delhi-110053.

……..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.498/2013 J P Jain vs 3i Infotech Ltd. filed before District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, Delhi 14.07.2014 was fixed for filing WS 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 Dharmender Sehrawat, 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 before the District Forum on the date fixed is that by mistake, Counsel for the Appellant noted the wrong date as 15.07.2014 in place of 14.07.2014. Hence he could not appear and the case was proceeded ex-parte. 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 14.07.2014 in question, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- which the OP will pay to the complainant on the next date.  The case is remanded back to the District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, Delhi with the direction that they will allow the Appellant/OP to file the WS and decide the case after hearing both the parties. The Appellant/OP is directed to appear before the District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, Delhi on the date fixed.

5.   A copy of this order be sent to District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, 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.