Delhi

StateCommission

RP/14/2015

SH. SATISH K. VATS - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S TRAVEL MASTI HOLIDAYS PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Decision: 09.08.2016

 

Revision Petition No.14/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 09.07.2014 passed in Complaint Case No.886/2012 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum(West) New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

Shri Satish Kumar Vats,

S/o Sh. P.S. Vats,

Delhi.                                                                  ....Petitioner

 

Versus

M/s. Flight Raja Travels Pvt. Ltd.,

1^st Floor, Plot No.56,

Rama Road Industrial Area

New Delhi-110005.                                              ...Respondent

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

 

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2.  To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. The order under challenge in this revision petition prayer is dated 09.07.2014, passed by the District Forum (West) in CC No.886/2012.
2. Alongwith the petition, there is an application for condonation of delay of 128 days in filing the petition.
3. It is stated that on 09.07.2014 the counsel for complainant was out of station and the proxy who had appeared on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner/complainant informed that the matter had been adjourned to 22.08.2014, without disclosing that the right of the petitioner/complainant to file evidence has been closed. It is stated that on 20.08.2014, counsel for the petitioner/complainant prepared and drafted the evidence by way of affidavit and same was also duly attested and when the counsel went to attend the matter on 22.08.2014, it was found that court room was undergoing renovation and matter was adjourned for 24.11.2014. On the said date also an associate of the counsel who had appeared informed that the matter had been adjourned for 17.12.2014 for settlement. On the said date the matter was again adjourned by the Ld. District Forum for 17.02.2015 as coram was not complete. In the meanwhile, counsel for the petitioner/complainant had applied for certified copies of the relevant order-sheet and from there it was revealed that right of the petitioner/complainant to file evidence had already been closed on 07.07.2014. In these circumstances delay of 128 days occurred.
4. There is nothing on record to show that the delay has been caused intentionally. Nothing contrary is also pointed out on behalf of the respondent/OP.
5. In view of the reasoning given in the application for condonation of delay we condone the delay in filing the present petition.
6. By the impugned order right of the petitioner/complainant to file evidence has been closed. The impugned order reads as under:

 

          “09.07.2014

Present: Ms. Kulvinder Kaur, Proxy for Manuj 

              Aggarwal

Mr. Vishal Nidhi, Counsel for the Respondent.

             

      Today is the 5^th day for filing of the evidence of the complainant and even today evidence is not filed. Already several opportunities were granted. Hence complainant evidence is closed today.  OP is still ready and offering some amount as settlement. Neither the main counsel nor the complainant is present in person to arrive at any settlement. Hence instead of disposing of the complaint one opportunity be granted for personal appearance of the complainant for settlement and if for any reason complainant fails to appear on the next date complaint shall be disposed of.

 

      Put up on 22.08.2014.”

 

 

7. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant that due to bonafide mistake the evidence by way of affidavit could not be filed. It is stated that great prejudice shall be caused to it in case petitioner/complainant is not given a chance to contest the case on merits.
8. We have gone through the reasoning given due to which petitioner/complainant could not file the evidence by way of affidavit before the Ld. District Forum. We are satisfied that due to bonafide mistake the petitioner/complainant could not file the evidence. Further, a great prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/complainant if the petitioner/complainant is not given chance to substantiate its case. On the other hand, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent/OP as it will get full opportunity to rebut the stand of the petitioner/complainant. For the delay caused, respondent/OP can be compensated with the costs.
9. In view of the reasoning given as well as for effective disposal of the case on merit, we accept this petition and set aside the impugned order subject to payment of cost of Rs.1500/- to the respondent/OP.
10. It is stated that the matter is listed before the District Forum on 10.08.2016.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 10.08.2016, when the petitioner/complainant shall file its evidence by way of affidavit and shall pay costs to respondent/complainant. Thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
13. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the Ld. District Forum(West) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

(Salma Noor)

Member