STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

                                  REVISION NO. 141 OF 2016

                (Against the order dated 06-04-2016 in Complaint Case No.

                  117/2015 of the District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad )

Mycem Heidelberg Cement

Prop. Heidelberg Cement

Village Ghadaura

District Jhansi, U.P.

Registered Office 9 Floor

Infocity Tower C.D.L.F., Cyber City

Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 

                                                                                          ...Revisionist

                                                     Vs.

Munwwar Alam

S/o Aabid Hussain

R/o Jayantipur Road

Meena Nagar

District Moradabad

                                                                                         ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER

For the Revisionist                  :    Sri Arun Tandan, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party            :                      

Dated : 17-11-2016

                                                  JUDGMENT

       MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT (ORAL)

Sri Arun Tandan, learned Counsel for the revisionist appeared.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused impugned order dated 06-04-2016.

Present revision has been filed under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 06-04-2016 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, Moradabad in Complaint Case No. 117/2015 Muswvar Alam V/s Mohd. Chaman and another whereby the District Consumer Forum has rejected application moved by revisionist for accepting written statement filed by him.

We have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused impugned order dated 06-04-2016.

Perusal of impugned order shows that vide order dated 06-04-2016 the District Consumer Forum has rejected application of revisionist for accepting written statement. The District Consumer Forum has rejected said application of

:2:

revisionist on the ground that written statement could not be filed within 45 days prescribed in Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The view taken by the District Consumer Forum is supported by judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. reported in I(2016) CPJ 1(SC). The impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law.

In First Appeal No. 257 of 2016 of Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and another V/s Dharampal decided by Hon’ble National Commission on 26-05-2016, the Hon’ble National Commission has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, in the interest of justice Hon’ble National Commission has permitted opposite parties of the complaint to participate in proceeding before the State Commission in accordance with law.

            In view of above no interference is justified in impugned order. Revision is dismissed with liberty to revisionist to move application before the District Consumer Forum for permission to participate in proceedings of complaint as provided by Hon’ble National Commission in above judgment. If such application is moved by revisionist before the District Consumer Forum, the District Consumer Forum shall pass order keeping in view proposition laid down by Honourable National Commission in above case before proceeding further.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties within 15 days positively as per rules. 

   ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                            ( SMT. BAL KUMARI )

                                   MEMBER

            Pnt.