Delhi

StateCommission

RP/182/2016

PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVI KUMAR & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

KAPIL KHER

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :10.02.2017

 

Revision Petition No. 182/2016

(Arising out of the ex-parte order dated 24.2.16 passed in Complaint Case No.1671/15 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh,New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd.

12^th Floor, Ambience Tower

Ambience Islands,

NH-8

Gurgaon (Haryana)

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Ravi Kumar

S/o Late shri Giani Ram,

R/o House No. 83, Village Bakoli

Delhi-110036

 

2. Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

1981, Railway Road,

Narela

Delhi-110040

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Membe

 

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.          In this revision petition prayer is made for recalling of order dated 24.02.16 by which the petitioner herein i.e.OP-2 before the District Forum has been proceeded ex-parte.
2.          Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-2 has stated that the petitioner/OP-2 was not served before the Ld. District Forum and the respondent No.2/OP-1  i.e. Sargam Electronics Pvt. Ltd. had informed the petitioner/OP-2  in July,16 about the pendency of the present complaint case and informed the complaint was listed on 5.7.16. Thereupon petitioner had appeared before the District Forum on 5.7.16 and has come to know that petitioner/OP-2 had been proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that thereafter, certified copy of the same was applied which was made available on 25.7.16 and consequently, the present petition is filed.
3.          We may mention that name of the person from respondent No. 2/OP-1 who is alleged to have disclosed the petitioner/OP-2 about the listing of matter on 5.7.16 before the Ld. District Forum is not stated in the application. It is also not stated as to when he had informed to petitioner/OP-2.
4.          After some arguments respondent No.1/complainant submits that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of costs and petitioner/OP be allowed to contest the case on merits.
5.          In view of no objection given by the respondent No.1/complainant, we allow the present petition and set aside the order dated 26.7.16 subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,500/- to the respondent No.1/complainant.
6.          It is stated that the next date before the District Forum is 23.2.2017.
7.          On the said date petitioner/OP-2 shall pay the costs of Rs.3,500/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and shall file its written statement on the said date. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
8.          The revision petition stands allowed.
9.          A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum-V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.

 

            File be consigned to Record Room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

ak