Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/40/2015

M/s Reebok India Co. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shyam Sunder Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Anand Dabas and Inderjit Singh

23 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	40 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	19.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2015

 

1. M/s Reebok India Company, 7^th floor, Unitech Commercial Tower – II, Sector 45, Block B, Greenwood City, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana through its Authorized Signatory namely Vivek Tyagi.
2. M/s ADI Sports, Shop No.18, Ground Floor, DT Mall, IT Park, Kisangarh, Chandigarh – 160101 through its Authorized Signatory. 

……Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Shyam Sunder Sharma S/o Sh.L.P.Sharma, resident of House No.302, E-Block, Shivalik Vihar, Naya Goan, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

 

            ….Respondent/Complainant.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties.

 

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD), PRESIDENT

 

 

(ORAL)

 

            This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioners/Opposite Parties, against an order dated 29.09.2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (in short the Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.400 of 2015, vide which, the application moved by the revisionists for setting aside an exparte order dated 10.09.2015 was dismissed.

2.         Heard.

3.         Admitted. It be registered.

4.         Notice be issued to the respondent/complainant.

5.         At this stage, Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate has put in appearance, on behalf of the respondent/complainant and accepted notice on his behalf. He has filed his memo of appearance, which is taken on record.

6.         Service is complete. 

7.         Vide order dated 10.09.2015 for non appearance, the Revision Petitioners were ordered to proceed exparte. To set aside that order, petitioners filed an application, which was also dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2015 by the Forum. When dismissing above application, even right to put in appearance from that stage at which proceedings are fixed, was not given to the petitioners.       

8.         We have heard the Counsel  for the parties.

9.         We are of the opinion that delay in putting the appearance is not deliberate, which may disentitle the petitioners to contest the pending litigation. Furthermore, as per statutory law, the petitioners are entitled to appear and join the proceedings from the stage when appearance is so put in. Even that right was not given to the petitioners.

10.        When confronted with above situation, Counsel  for the respondent/complainant has failed to raise any plausible argument to say that this revision petition be dismissed, rather very fairly he conceded that let the revisionists be allowed to appear to join the proceedings by filing their reply and evidence on record. The matter is now fixed on 29.10.2015. Counsel  for the petitioners states that on or before the abovesaid date, he shall file the reply and evidence on record.

11.        In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge dated 29.09.2015 is set aside and liberty is granted to the petitioners to file reply and evidence by way of affidavit on or  before the date fixed i.e. 29.10.2015, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2500/-, which shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account on the date of hearing.  

12.        The record of the Forum, alongwith a certified copy of this order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date fixed i.e. 29.10.2015.

13.         Certified copies of this order be also sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

October 23, 2015.

                  Sd/-      

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 rb