Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/140/2016

M/s Amritsar Transport Company Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Poornima Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Poorvi Diagnostics - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Jain, Devanshu Aggarwal, Adv.

12 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

 

Appeal No.	:	140 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	09.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	12.05.2016

 

 

M/s. Amritsar Transport Company Limited through its Senior Branch Manager, Shri Raj Mal Chandra son of Shri R. D. Chandra, aged 44 years, having its office at Plot No.11, Transport Area, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Mrs. Poornima Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Poorvi Diagnostics, SCO No.6, First Floor, Sector 24-C, Chandigarh.

….Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT.

(ORAL)

 

            Service is complete.

2.         Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, by putting, on record, his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

3.         Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 106 days as per the applicant/appellant (as per the office report 95 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

4.         After hearing Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the ground stated in the application, is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is also supported by a duly sworn affidavit. Thus, finding sufficient cause, the delay aforesaid, in filing the appeal, is condoned.

5.         The application is disposed of accordingly.

6.         On 11.05.2016, following order was passed by this Commission:-

      “As per office report, record of the District Forum has been received.

      Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 106 days as per the applicant/appellant (as per the office report 95 days), in filing the appeal, has been filed.

      At the time of arguments, Counsel for the applicant/appellant has limited his prayer only qua grant of compensation stating that order was placed at the instance of a Firm and in that eventuality, compensation cannot be granted.

      Let notice of this application, aforesaid as also in the main appeal be issued to the respondent for 12.05.2016.

      Dasti notice be also given to the Counsel for the applicant/appellant for the service of the respondent.

      Liberty is also granted to serve the respondent/complainant through Counsel  who had appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant before the District Forum.”

7.         At the time, when the appeal was admitted, Counsel  for the appellant confined his claim only qua grant of compensation for physical and mental harassment by stating that the order was placed at the instance of the Firm and, as such, as per established law, compensation cannot be granted.

8.         Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, Ahluwalia, Advocate, Counsel  for the respondent/ complainant, when confronted with above said proposition of law, very fairly states that let the component of compensation to the tune of Rs.40,000/- be set aside and the direction be issued to the appellant to pay rest of the amount i.e. Rs.1,12,875/- towards cost of material lost alongwith interest and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses, as already directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’).

9.         We appreciate the fair stand taken by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.

10.        In view of above, this appeal stands disposed of. Direction qua grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.40,000/- vide impugned order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the District Forum (I), U.T., Chandigarh stands quashed. Rest of the judgment shall remain intact.

11.        Sh. Vikas Jain, Advocate, Counsel for the appellant states that the above said amount towards cost of lost material and litigation expenses, shall be paid within three week from today.

12.        Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of charge.

13.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced.

12^th May 2016.

           [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER