Rajasthan

StateCommission

RP/77/2015

Nandlal s/o Satyanarian - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Truth Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Ghyanshyam Sharma

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

REVISION PETITION NO: 77 /2015

 

Nandlal r/o Plot No. 22, Gayatri Nagar, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

Vs.

 

M/s. Truth Telecom, 65-A, Suraj Nagar, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 18.3.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.Ghanshyam Sharma counsel for the applicant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This revision petition has been filed against the

2

 

judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 2^nd dated 6.11.2015 whereby the original complaint has been dismissed in absence of the applicant.

 

The contention of the applicant during the course of arguments was that on 6.11.2015 he was present and so also on earlier date 10.8.2015 but the court has instructed him to wait for the opposite party. Hence, the order is perverse and liable to be rejected.

 

Heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned judgment as well as order sheets of the earlier date, copy of which has been submitted today.

 

Perusal of order sheets goes to show that earlier date in the matter was 10.8.2015 and on that day the complainant was not present till 4.45 p.m. and same happened on 6.11.2015 till 4.10 p.m. nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant and the Forum below was justified in dismissing the complaint and the contention of the applicant that on both dates he was present before the Forum below was illfounded and cannot be relied upon. Further in the memo of revision it has been submitted that wrong date has been mentioned in the diary. Both the

3

 

contentions are contrary to each other which clearly suggest that applicant complainant himself was not present before the Forum below for consecutive two dates and the Forum below was right in dismissing the complaint.

 

Hence, there is no merit in this revision and liable to be rejected.

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

nm