Punjab

StateCommission

A/1428/2014

Shivam Travelling Point - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Goyal

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB    DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.1428 of 2014                                                  

             Date of institution  :    21.10.2014   

Date of decision     :    24.02.2015

 

Shivam Travelling Point, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager Ashish Goyal, 35/14-A, Shivpuri, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                          ...Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

1.      Mukesh Kumar S/o Tarsem Lal C/o National Tea Company,    Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

                                                                 …Respondent/Complainant

2.      Arzoo.com (India) Private Ltd., through its M.D./Manager/         Authorized Signatory, 5^th Floor, Samruddhi Venture Park,         MIDC Central road, Andheri East, Mumbai-    400093.

 

                                   …Performa Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

First Appeal against the order dated 26.09.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

Quorum:- 

 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

 

          For the appellant        :       Shri Deepak Goyal, Advocate.

          For respondent No.1 :       Shri Munish Goyal, Advocate.

 

 

 

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

 

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ opposite party No.1 against the order dated 26.09.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “District Forum”), vide which it was proceeded against ex parte.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Mukesh Kumar, respondent No.1/complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.374 dated 09.07.2014 against the appellant/opposite party No.1 and respondent No.2/opposite party No.2; which was admitted by the District Forum on 16.07.2014 and notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite parties for 21.08.2014. The notices could not be issued to them due to non-availability of the postal stamps and those were ordered to be issued for 26.09.2014. The notices were sent under the registered post on 25.08.2014, but neither the AD receipts were received nor the undelivered registered covers were received back on or before the date fixed. Presuming the service, the opposite parties were proceeded against ex parte. In the grounds of appeal, opposite party No.1 admitted that the notice was received by it for 26.09.2014, but took up the plea that the same was misplaced and it also did not note down the date inadvertently and that he found the notice/summons on 15.10.2014 and on inquiry, came to know that it had been proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 26.09.2014.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party No.1 that the absence of this opposite party before the District Forum on the date fixed was beyond its control, as summons was misplaced and after the same was found, the present appeal was filed immediately. Thus, there is sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that merely on the basis of the allegations made in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be held that there is sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. From the circumstances, it becomes very much clear that the only intention of opposite party No.1 was to delay the proceedings and its absence from the District Forum was wilful and intentional. Therefore, the ex parte proceedings cannot be set aside against it.
5. The facts, pleaded in the grounds of appeal and which have been enumerated above, were required to be proved by opposite party No.1 by means of affidavit or other documents. Affidavit of one Ashish Goyal, Proprietor of opposite party No.1, was filed with the grounds of appeal, but in that affidavit, he never deposed about those facts. He only stated that the contents of Para Nos.1 to 7 of the appeal are true and correct to his knowledge. This is no affidavit in the eyes of law. The said deponent was required to depose about the facts on oath in his affidavit, but he failed to do so.
6. It is the case of opposite party No.1 itself that after the summons was found on 15.10.2014, an inquiry was made and it was found that it had been proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 26.09.2014. Such an inquiry could have been made only from the District Forum. In that eventuality, opposite party No.1 could have put in its appearance before the District Forum, as it could have joined the proceedings at any stage. It did not join the proceedings before the District Forum, which itself shows that its only intention was to delay the disposal of the complaint. The making of mandatory provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 itself, for the disposal of the complaints within the time frame of three months/five months, shows that the Legislature intended that the parties should be vigilant and should put in their appearance immediately after the service; in order to enable the District Forum to decide the complaint within that time frame. Keeping in view all these facts and that the contentions made in the grounds of appeal are not supported by an affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make a good cause for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

1.  

    

                                                           (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                          PRESIDENT  

                                                            

    

    

                                                           (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)

                                                                            MEMBER

                                                            

    

    

                                                         (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

   February 24, 2015                                       MEMBER

   (Gurmeet S)