Delhi

StateCommission

RP/70/2015

HATHWAY DIGITAL CABLE PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MR. P.K. SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                 Date of Decision: 07.10.2015

Revision Petition No. 70/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 06.08.2015 passed in complaint case No. 312/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Saini Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Hathway Digital Cable (P) Ltd.

Office at AB-6, Safdar Jung Enclave

Near Kamal Cinema

New Delhi-110029                                    Appellant

 

Versus

 

   Mr. P.K.Singh

   C/o Singh Associates

   E-503, Karkardooma Court

   Delhi-110032                                           Respondent

                                                               

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                -                       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

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

      Heard on admission.

      Admitted.

      The revisionist has impugned the orders dt. 06.08.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Saini Enclave, Delhi. The order is reproduced below:

  “The complainant has not complied with the last order dated 02.06.2015. The counsel of opposite party has not moved any application in respect of non-payment of the cost imposed on the last date of hearing. Therefore, in this situation the reply given by the opposite party is not taken on record. The complainant filed his evidence on or before 24.09.2015”.

      Vide order dt. 02.07.2015 Ld. District Forum imposed costs of Rs. 500/- on the revisionist herein for not filing of written version. Costs were to be paid within a period of three days. On the subsequent date i.e. 06.08.2015, Ld. District Forum closed the right of the OP/revisionist herein for filing of written version observing that the costs of Rs. 500/- were not paid within the stipulated period of three days. Written version however stood filed by the OP/revisionist herein on 02.07.2015 itself.

      Ld. Counsel for the OP/revisionist herein has stated at the bar that the OP could not tender the costs of Rs. 500/- to the Complainant/Respondent within the period of three days for the reason that the counsel did not understand the import of the orders dt. 02.07.2015. We have no reasons to disbelieve the contention put forth by the counsel for the OP/revisionist herein ignorance of law though is no excuse but in the circumstances and in the interest of justice, revision petition is allowed. Orders dt. 06.08.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum are set aside. Let written version of the OP/Revisionist herein be taken on record subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/- by the OP/Revisionist herein in the District Forum itself on 29.10.2015. Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.

      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

      One copy be sent to the District Forum concerned.

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(f)