Haryana

StateCommission

RP/91/2016

CROWN REALTECH PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RACHNA KATYAL - Opp.Party(s)

LOKESH SINHAL

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                     

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  91 of 2016

Date of Institution:        21.10.2016

Date of Decision :         05.12.2016

 

M/s Crown Realtech Private Limited, Office:12/4, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana) through Authorized Signatory Sh. J.P. Gupta.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Mrs. Rachna Katyal wife of Sh. Jai Deep Katyal, resident of House No.378, Sector 17, Faridabad.

 

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s AGM Corp. Comm. & MKTG (IT), Head Office: SB 17, 2^nd Floor, Crown Plaza Mall, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana) through its Directors/Principal Officers.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

 

Present:               Shri Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for petitioner

                             Shri Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.1

                                                None for the respondent No.2

               

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Crown Realtech Private Limited-opposite party No.1 (petitioner) is in revision against the orders dated August 08^th, 2016 and September 07^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and its application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed, respectively.

2.      Vide Detailed Track Events (copy enclosed) for RH246649398IN whereby notice was issued to respondent No.2, article was delivered to it on November 07^th, 2016.  Despite service, respondent No.2 did not appear.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that counsel of the petitioner could not appear before the District Forum as he has been appointed as Member in the Appellate Income Tax Tribunal without informing the petitioner.

4.      He has further urged that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is December 16^th, 2016.

5.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

6.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders August 08^th, 2016 and September 07^th, 2016 are set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on December 16^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 05.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK