Delhi

StateCommission

RP/11/2016

TATA SKY PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJIV RAIJADA - Opp.Party(s)

NILESH KUMAR

19 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Decision: 19.05.2016

 

 

Revision Petition No.11/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 22.12.2015 passed in Complaint Case No.694/2015 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (West), New Delhi)

 

In the matter of:

 

Tata Sky Private Limited,

C-1, Wadia International Centre,

Worli, Mumbai                                                                    ....Petitioner

 

 

Versus

 

Shri Rajiv Raizada,

314, Virat Apartments,

Paschim Vihar, Rohtak Road,

New Delhi                                                                         ...Respondent

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. 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

 

 

1. This is a revision petition wherein prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 22.12.2015 by which the petitioner herein i.e. OP No.1 and 2 before the District Forum have been proceeded ex-parte.
2. Ld. counsel for the petitioners/OP No.1 and 2 has stated that the appearance could not be made on the aforesaid date before the Ld. District Forum as the counsel for the petitioners/OP No.1 and 2 was held up in a traffic jam and on the first call the Ld. District Forum had proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners/OPs. It is stated that even the copy of the complaint was not sent with the notice nor the same was supplied when the appearance was made at later stage before the District Forum.
3. Respondent/complainant is served. He is present in person. Respondent/complainant that he has no objection in case the impugned order is set aside subject to costs, as the delay has been caused. Further for no fault of him he has to appear in the present petition before this Commission.
4. In view of the reasons given as well as for effective disposal of the case on merit, we accept this petitioner and set aside the impugned order subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-.
5. It is stated that the next date before the District Forum is 23.05.2016.
6. The parties shall appear before District Forum on the aforesaid date i.e. 23.05.2016 and the petitioner/OP No.1 and 2 shall pay costs to the respondent/complainant. Thereafter the Ld. District Forum shall proceed 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 Ld. District Forum(West) for information and keeping it on record for compliance

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

 

•  

 

(Salma Noor)

Member