Delhi

StateCommission

RP/288/2016

M/S TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAVEEN DABAS & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 23.12.2016

 

 

Revision Petition No.288/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 05.01.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.357/2012 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-VII, New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited,

Jayalakshmi Estate No.29,

Haddows Road, Chennai.

                       ....Petitioner

 

Versus

 

1.    Mr. Parveen Dabas,

       RZ- C-42, Gopal Nagar,

       Najafgar, New Delhi.

 

2.    M/s. Padam TVS (H.R. Motors),

       Plot No.61, Roshan Mandi,

       Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh,

       New Delhi.

....Respondents

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

 

 

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is a revision petition wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the District Forum-VII in CC No.357/2012, whereby the petitioner/ OP has been proceeded ex-parte..
2. The aforesaid order reads as under:

          

           “05.01.2016

Present:   Complainant in person.

 

       None for OP despite several calls.

       Presence of be awaited till 2 PM.

                

       Case called out at 2.05 PM. None appeared for OPs, hence OPs are proceeded ex-parte.

 

       Fixed 1.3.16 for exparte evidence.

 

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 05.01.2016 the counsel for the petitioner/OP was in personal difficulty as such a proxy was sent to appear before the Ld. District Forum. However, the proxy for counsel for petitioner/OP appeared late as a result of which the Ld. District Forum proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner/OP.  It is stated that the Ld. District Forum has wrongly listed the matter for ex-parte evidence, whereas the evidence of parties was already on record, and written arguments were also filed, on 05.01.2016 it was listed for oral arguments.
4. Respondent/complainant is present in person. After some arguments, the respondent/complainant states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside subject to costs.
5. Since the case was at the stage of final arguments, the District Forum ought not have proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner/OP. Considering the reasoning given for non-appearance on 05.01.2016 as well as statement of the respondent/complainant as well as for effective disposal of the case on merit, subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- we accept this petition and set aside the order dated 05.01.2016. The petitioner/OP is allowed to participate in the proceedings. It is stated that the matter is now listed on 27.02.2017 before the Ld. District Forum.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 27.02.2017, when the petitioner/OP shall pay costs to the respondent/complainant and thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
7. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the District Forum-VII, New Delhi for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

​