NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/422/2017

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHANKAR MUKUND PHADTE & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. SRIVASTAVA & ASSOCIATES

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 422 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 21/12/2016 in Appeal No. 17/2016 of the State Commission Goa)
1. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, CORPORATE ONE (BAANI BUILDING) PLOT NO. 5, COMMERCIAL CENTRE JASOLA
NEW DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SHANKAR MUKUND PHADTE & ANR.
R/O. HOUSE NO. 109, SHANKAR SMRUTI EKOSHI, P.O. BETIM,
BARDEZ
GOA
2. COUNTO AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT SUKERKAR MANSION OPP. GOVT. PRINTING PRESS,
PANAJI
GOA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Ms. Prachi Johri, Advocate and
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Rahul Malik, Advocate with
Respondent No.1 in person
NEMO for R-2

Dated : 06 Apr 2018
ORDER

ORDER (ORAL)

 

        Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No.2.  Consequently, the said Respondent is proceeded against ex parte.

-2-

        Respondent No.1, the Complainant, submits that despite the fact that there have been several defaults on the part of the Petitioner Company, in as much as the Written Version was not filed within the stipulated time; the travel and allied expenses as directed vide order dated 01.03.2017 were not remitted and even a complete set of the paper book, directed to be supplied on the last date of hearing has not been received by him, still, in order to avoid further delay in the disposal of the Complaint, filed by him sometime in the year 2016, he would not object to the Written Version, already filed on behalf of the Petitioner, for being taken on record provided he is adequately compensated for the afore-said defaults and is granted an opportunity to file evidence in rebuttal to the evidence filed on behalf of the Petitioner.

        In view of the above statement and bearing in mind the observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs. M/s Mampee Timbers And Hardwares Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. (C.A. Diary No.2365 of 2017), we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the order dated 21.12.2016 passed by the State Commission and the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the District Forum, rejecting the Application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing its Written Version, subject to the Petitioner paying to the Complainant costs of ₹25,000/-.  The costs shall be remitted by the Petitioner to the Complainant along with the travel and allied expenses, totaling ₹35,000/-, by means of a Demand Draft within three weeks from today.    

We clarify that the Written Version shall be taken into consideration only if the afore-stated costs are paid to the Complainant.

 

-3-

        The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed.

        The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no further order as to costs.

        Order dasti.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.