Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/212

KUMAR KARAMCHANDANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ M/S ANUPAM HOLIDAY - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

FIRST APPEAL NO.212 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 29.12.2012 passed in Case.No.535/2012 by District Forum, Bhopal)

                       

KUMAR KARAMCHANDANI

R/O 15 CI VILLAS, CHUNNA BHATTI,

KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL.                                               …  APPELLANT.

Versus

 

M/S ANUPAM HOLIDAY MAX PVT. LTD,.

THRO ADHIKRIT – ANUPAM SHUKLA,

R/O C 230, SAHARA PLAZA, GOMTI NAGAR,

LUCKNOW. 226010                                                   .… RESPONDENT.

                      

BEFORE :

           

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI  SHANTANU S.KEMKAR :       PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SHRI S.S.BANSAL                                         :       MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Somendra Saxena, learned counsel  for respondent.

 

O R D E R

(Passed on 17.12.2019)

 

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar, President:

                      This first appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2012 passed in Case.No.535/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal, (for short ‘Forum’) where by the Forum has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant / complainant on the basis of documents Ex. P1 issue by the opposite party and filed by the complainant.

2.                 According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the respondent remained ex-parte before the Forum and the Forum taking the contents of Ex. P1 to be a gospel truth, dismissed the complaint. 

3.                On the other hand the counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.

4.                We have gone through the pleading in the complaint and the evidence.  We find that in the absence of reply filed by the respondent / opposite party, the Forum has treated the statement made in the document Ex.P1 to the correct, ignoring the fact that the contents of the said documents were to be proved by the opposite party.

5.                In the circumstances, we are of the view, that the impugned order cannot be sustained.  The same deserves to be set aside.  We, accordingly, remand the case back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh.   The opposite party deserves to be given an opportunity to file reply.  The respondent is permitted to file the reply within 30 days from the date of appearance before the Forum.   Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 09.01.2020.