Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/18/40

DEEPAK K. BARKADEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEV. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Nov 2019

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                              

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2018

(Arising out of order dated 24.08.2017 passed in C.C.No.16/2014 by District Forum, Jabalpur)

 

DEEPAK KUMAR BARKADE.                                                                               …          APPELLANT

 

Versus

                 

SHRI KRISHNA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS                                                      …         RESPONDENT.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE DR. MRS MONIKA MALIK                            :      PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI PRABHAT PARASHAR                      :      MEMBER                                   

 

                                      O R D E R

 

11.11.2019

 

          Shri Arya Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent.

          

As per Dr. Mrs Monika Malik :                       

           This appeal by the complainant/appellant is against the order dated 24.08.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur (For short ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.16/2014 whereby the complaint was dismissed for want of appearance of the complainant.

2.                     Heard learned counsel for the appellant on IA-1, application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

3.                     The appeal is barred by five months and ten days. We find that there was sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing appeal is condoned.

4.                     Heard learned counsel for appellant finally.

5.                     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint in default, when the counsel in the complaint could not appears on first two occasions.  Learned counsel further argued that the matter deserves to be decided on merits and therefore, the impugned order be set-aside. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant undertakes to inform the opposite party/respondent in this regard.

6.                     Having heard learned counsel for complainant/appellant we are of a considered view that there were sufficient reasons for non-appearance of the complainant on the aforesaid dates, subsequent to which the Forum has dismissed the complaint.

 

                                                                     -2-

7.                     In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned order and direct the Forum to restore the complaint to its original number subject to deposition of cost of Rs.1,000/- in the State Commission. Thereafter the Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Forum on 12.12.2019.

 

                      (Dr. Monika Malik)                                (Prabhat Parashar)             

                      Presiding Member                                        Member