NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4037/2010

M/S. NIIT LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. SAURABH PARVI - Opp.Party(s)

MR. AVANISH KUMAR

03 Mar 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 4037 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 31/08/2010 in Appeal No. 34/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)

1. M/S. NIIT LTD. C-125, Okhla Phase-I New Delhi Delhi	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SH. SAURABH PARVI R/o. H. No. 32, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar Complex Delhi - 110092 Delhi	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. AVANISH KUMAR

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 03 Mar 2011

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the entire amount under the award has since been deposited in this Commission. As regards the service of the notice on the complaint issued by the District Forum is concerned, the petitioner’s earlier stand of the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 03.12.2010 was that no notice of the complainant on the complaint was ever received by the petitioner. But now the learned counsel for the petitioner states that notice was duly served on Ms. Shailly (Centre Head of M/s NIIT Limited, C-125, Okhla, Phase – I, New Delhi) but the said officer had not informed the Head office of the company about the receipt of any such notice. Assuming that it is correct, we are of the clear view that petitioner will be deemed to have been duly served with a notice on the complaint and since it failed to respond to the complaint and put up any defence before the fora below whatsoever we cannot find any fault with the orders passed by the fora below. No interference is required. The revision petition, as such, is dismissed. The Registrar of this Commission is directed to remit the deposited amount to the District Forum for disbursing the same to the respondent forthwith.

......................J

R.C. JAIN

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER