| Complaint Case No. CC/537/2016 | | ( Date of Filing : 19 May 2016 ) |
| | | | 1. NEETU CHHABRA | | A-7/48,SEC-16,ROHINI,DELHI-110085 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. M/S KAMAL IDEAL INFRATECH PVT.LTD. & ORS | | 116,NDM-1,NETA JI SUBHASH PLACE,NEW DELHI-110034 | | 2. ALSO AT: | | MAIN SECTOR ROAD,ABUTTING MAIN NH-1,KUNDALI ,SONEPAT,HARYANA | | 3. CHANDER SHEKHAR GROVER | | DIRECTOR,M/S KAMAL IDEAL INFTECH PVT.LTD.,116,NDM-1, NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE,NEW DELHI-110034 | | 4. RAVI SHARMA | | DIRECTOR,M/S KAMAL IDEAL INFTECH PVT.LTD.,116,NDM-1, NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE,NEW DELHI-110034 | | 5. VIKAS TUSHIR | | DIRECTOR,M/S KAMAL IDEAL INFTECH PVT.LTD.,116,NDM-1, NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE,NEW DELHI-110034 | | 6. DEEPAK SHARMA | | DIRECTOR,M/S KAMAL IDEAL INFTECH PVT.LTD.,116,NDM-1, NETAJI SUBHASH PALACE,NEW DELHI-110034 |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: N-W GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088. MISC. APPL. IN CC No: 737/2017 In the matter of: MOHIT SETHI & ANR. … COMPLAINANT/APPLICANT Versus HDFC STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. LTD. … OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENT DATE: 25.10.2021 ORDER - The complainant through his Counsel has filed an application dated 03.10.2018 for restoration of the complaint which was dismissed in default vide order dated 19.09.2018. In the application, the applicant submitted that Ms. Sadhna appearing on behalf of the complainant wrongly noted the next date of hearing as 29.09.2018 instead of 19.09.2018. On 29.09.2018, it was revealed that case has already been dismissed in default vide order dated 19.09.2018. It is further submitted that non appearance is neither intentionally nor willfully, hence, the present application be allowed in the interest of justice.
- This Commission has considered the case of the applicant and heard counsel for applicant. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4307 of 2007 alongwith Civil Appeal No. 8155 of 2001 titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. And M.O.H. Leathers Vs. United Commercial Bank respectively
“ the Consumer Foras had no powers to set-aside ex-parte orders and have no power to review their orders and it has been also held that the Foras had no such powers which have not been expressly given by the statue.” - There is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby providing power to the Consumer Court to restore the complaint which has already been dismissed in default. Accordingly relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court the application of the applicant of the complainant for restoration of the case is dismissed. Copy of order be given dasti. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 25th October, 2021. (ARUN KUMAR ARYA) PRESIDENT (NIPUR CHANDNA) (R.C. MEENA) MEMBER MEMBER | |
