Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/4/2016

Apple India Pvt. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paramjeet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Jain Adv.

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Revision Petition No.	:	4 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	16.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	18.02.2016

 

 

APPLE India Pvt. Ltd., 19 Floor, Concorde Tower C UB City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore – 560001 through its authorised Signatory.

……Revision Petitioner.

Versus

1. Paramjeet Singh S/o Balbir Singh R/o House No.346, Gilico Heights, Kharar, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                       ……Respondent No.1/complainant.

2. Paramatrix Info Solutions, 112-113, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Director.
3. Aggarwal Communications, SCO 105, Sector 35C, Chandigarh.

         ….Respondents No.2 & 3/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Deepak Jain, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

 

(ORAL)

 

            As per the office report, record of the District Forum has been received.

2.         On the asking of Court, Sh.Himanshu Puri, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant and filed his memorandum of appearance, which is taken on record. Similarly, Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2.

3.         This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 08.01.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, for non-appearance, exparte proceedings were ordered against the revision petitioner.

4.         It is stated by Sh.Deepak Jain, Advocate, Counsel  for the revision petitioner that non-appearance was not intentional. It happened because the Counsel  for the Revision Petitioner was detained somewhere else on account of his personal difficulty. It is prayed that order dated 08.01.2016 be set aside and opportunity be granted to the revision petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 to file written statement and evidence on record. It is further stated that needful shall be done on or before the next date of hearing.

5.         To the prayer made, very graciously Sh.Himanshu Puri, Advocate, Counsel  for respondent No.1/complainant and Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate, Counsel  for respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 have not raised any objection.

6.         Under such circumstances, Revision Petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. Liberty is granted to the revision petitioner to file his reply, affidavit and evidence, on record, of Forum before the next date of hearing i.e. 09.03.2016, failing which, no further opportunity shall be granted to the revision petitioner.

7.         The parties/their Counsel  shall put in appearance before the Forum on 09.03.2016, on which date, complaint is pending consideration.

8.         Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.         Complete record alongwith a certified copy of this order be sent to the Forum, immediately, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

10.        File be consigned to the Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

February  18, 2016.

                       

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

Rb/ad