Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/687/2014

Girish Agarwal s/o Ramesh Chand Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajasthan Housing Board through Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

D.M.Mathur

11 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO:687/2014

 

Girish Agarwal s/o Ramesh Chand Gupta r/o 4 Ka-16, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur through Secretary.

 

 

Date of Order 11.9.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs.Sunita Ranka-Member

 

Mr. D.M.Mathur counsel for the appellant

Mr.Shiv Vyas counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed

2

 

by the learned DCF Jaipur Ist dated 22.5.2014 by which the application u/s 27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 has been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the parties.

 

The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on 22.5.2014 the complainant and his counsel was present but counsel for the opposite party was not present and the learned DCF had passed over the case and waited for the counsel for the opposite party but later on it was dismissed in default. The learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the application and has argued on merits of the case. He has drawn our attention to the judgment dated 17.3.2006 of this Commission in which during course of arguments in appeal against the order of the learned DCF Jaipur First dated 16.12.1996, it was mentioned that compliance of the order has been made and this appeal was dismissed on that ground. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that there is no basis for an application u/s 27 of the C P Act, 1986 as the compliance of the impugned order has been made as recorded by the Commission in its order dated 17.3.2006.

 

We have heard the arguments of both the parties. We think we should not go into the merits of the application u/s 27

3

 

of the C.P.Act, 1986. As far as the restoration of the application is concerned, the ordersheet of the DCF showed that complainant has been very negligent in pursuing this application as on many occasions neither he nor his counsel was present before the learned DCF. However, in the interest of justice we order restoration of this application on the cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the opposite party before further prosecution in the case.

 

There is another strange fact in this case. This case was dismissed in default on 22.5.2014 but the ordersheet dated 18.9.2014 states that file be put up on 18.12.2014 and opportunity was granted to the parties for appearance. We do not know how this order was recorded when the complaint was dismissed in default and consigned to record on 22.5.2014. However, the application of the complainant is allowed on the cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

 

(Sunita Ranka) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

nm