Delhi

StateCommission

RP/24/2016

TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJENDRA PRASAD - Opp.Party(s)

SWATA KAPOOR

14 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

 

Date of Decision: 14.03.2016

 

Revision Petition-24/2016

 

        In the Matter of:

               

                TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

          NDPL House

          Hudson Lines

          Kingsway Camp

          Delhi-110009 

……Petitioner     Versus   Rajender Prasad S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal R/o House No. 1967, Ground Floor, Basti Julahan, Malka Ganj, Delhi-07                                                                                …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

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

 

                  The challenge in this revision petition is made to order dated 07.10.2015 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short ‘the District Forum’) by which the right of the petitioner/OP to file its evidence has been closed.

                  The impugned order reads as under:

                  “07.10.15

                  Present:    AR of the complainant.

                                   None for OP.

                  Previous order sheet reveals that OP is not filing its evidence. Since last 3 dates and today none is present on behalf of OP. Opportunity of the OP to file the evidence is closed. Case be fixed for W-sub by the complainant on 2.12.15”

                  After some arguments respondent states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and appellant/OP be given chance to file its evidence by way of affidavit. However, respondent insists that since delay has been caused in the matter, costs be imposed on the petitioner/OP.

                  In view of the reasoning given in the petition for not filing the evidence as well as keeping in mind the interest of justice so that the petitioner/OP is in a position to effectively contest the case on merits as well as no objection given by respondent we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/-.

                  It is stated that the matter is listed before the District Forum on 16.03.2016. On the said date petitioner/OP shall pay the costs of Rs. 3000/- to the respondent/complainant and thereafter the District Forum shall given 15 days time to the petitioner/OP to file its evidence by way of affidavit.

                  Revision petitioner stands disposed of accordingly.

                  A copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs as well as be sent to the District Forum for necessary information.

                  File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member