Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/16/592

SMT.SHRUTI SHIVHARE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW LOOK MULTI TRADE - Opp.Party(s)

SH. HEMANT SHARMA

04 Jul 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL      

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2016

 (Arising out of order dated 21.03.2016 passed in C.C.No.133/2016 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

SMT. SHRUTI SHIVHARE.                                                                                   …          APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

M/S NEW LOOK MULTI TRADE PVT. LTD.                                                          …         RESPONDENT.

 

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI              :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                 HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY      :      MEMBER

                

                                      O R D E R

04.07.2024

 

           Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           None for the respondent.

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.133/2016, whereby the complainant’s complaint has been dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage.

2.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

3.                The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite party/respondent alleging that the opposite party company by

-2-

luring enrolled him as an associate of their company M. Mart and assured him to give various facilities as per proposal. He paid Rs.5,500/- to the opposite party for the same. However, the complainant neither received money nor any facilities as assured from the opposite party. The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by him as not maintainable at the admission stage.

4.                After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on perusal of impugned order as also appeal memo we are of considered view that the notice of the complaint ought to have been issued to the opposite party and thereafter the evidence brought on record by the parties should have been considered.   Subsequently, an order should have been passed after taking into consideration the version of both parties. 

5.                Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, we are of considered view that the case deserves to be decided after issuance of notice to the opposite party. The matter is therefore remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh, after issuing notice to the opposite party. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission.

 

-3-

6.                Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 06.08.2024.

7.                The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. All the questions involved in the matter including maintainability and jurisdiction are kept open.

8.                The District Commission shall decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

9.                With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

             (A. K. Tiwari)              (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                  Acting President                      Member