Uttarakhand

StateCommission

A/435/2019

Mr. Umesh Arora , Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Sarita Bist Negi, Sub Inspector - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,UTTARAKHAND
176 Ajabpur Kalan,Mothrowala Road,
Dehradun-248121
Final Order
 
First Appeal No. A/435/2019
( Date of Filing : 12 Dec 2019 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 29/10/2018 in Case No. CC/156/2016 of District Dehradun)
 
1. Mr. Umesh Arora , Advocate
Chamber No.1 behind CJM Court, Court Compound,District Court. r/o H.No. 4 Commissioner's Lane, Mohni Road,Dalanwala
Dehradun
Uttarakhand
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ms. Sarita Bist Negi, Sub Inspector
d/o Vcikam singh r/o House No. 16, Old Police Line, , near District Court,
Dehradun
Uttarakhand
2. The Tehsildar
Tehsil, Dehradun
Dehradun
Uttarakhand
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DAYA SHANKAR TRIPATHI PRESIDENT
 
For the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 22 Jan 2020
Final Order / Judgement

Case is called out.  Appellant in person is present.  Sh. M.S. Saini, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 is also personally present.

Heard appellant in person and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on delay condonation application.

This appeal has been filed after a delay of 379 days against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 156 of 2016; Ms. Sarita Bisht Negi Vs. Sh. Umesh Arora, Advocate.

Delay condonation application has been filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing this appeal.  Delay condonation application is supported by affidavit.  It has been narrated in the affidavit that delay has been caused in filing this appeal due to accident and medical treatment of the appellant himself.  Documentary evidence has also been filed along with the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application.  No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to rebut the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of delay condonation application.

I am satisfied with the reasons shown by the appellant for delay in filing the appeal.  Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 379 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Heard appellant in person and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on admission of appeal.

Admit the appeal. 

At this stage, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent No. 1, with a prayer that respondent No. 1 has entered into compromise with the appellant and she does not want to contest the appeal, if the mandatory deposit of        Rs. 25,000/- is released in her favour and no other amount of decree remains to be realized from the appellant.  The appellant has endorsed on this application that he has no objection to this application, if the aforesaid amount is released in favour of respondent No. 1.  The appellant has further submitted that the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is dismissed, as not pressed.  The mandatory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) be released in favour of respondent No. 1.  File be consigned.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DAYA SHANKAR TRIPATHI]
PRESIDENT
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.