Delhi

StateCommission

RP/24/2015

M/S SUPERTECH LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT. BASANTI - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :7.10.2015

 

Revision Petition No. 24/15

(Setting aside the order dated 21.10.14 passed in Complaint Case No.501/2013 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,-II, Udyog Sadan, New Delhi)

 

In the matter of

 

M/s. Supertech Ltd.

1114, Hemkunt Chambers

89, Nehru Place

New Delhi-110019

……Appellant

 

Versus

Smt. Basanti

S/o Sh. Surender Kumar

R/o 1-66/A, Krishna Vihar,

Rohini, Delhi-110086

.…Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

O P Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

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, challenge has been made to order dated 21.10.2014 by which the petitioner herein i.e. OP before the District Forum has been proceeded ex-parte.
2.           Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier Sh. Aashutosh Mishra was engaged in the matter who initially informed about the progress of the complaint case. However, all of sudden said Counsel stopped informing about the progress in the case and also stopped attending the case, as a result of which the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte vide impugned order referred above.  It is stated that there is no fault of the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner be not allowed to suffer on account of lapse on the part of its Counsel.
3.           Petitioner/OP is not justified in shifting entire burden on the Counsel.  Petitioner/OP has not stated as to what steps it had taken to know about the status of the case from the said Counsel. However, considering that the stage of the case and also for effective decision of the case on merits, and no objections given by the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, we allow the present petition and  set aside the order dated 21.10.2014 and allow the petitioner/OP to contest the complaint case subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.
4.           The next date before the District Forum is stated to be 12.12.2015.
5.           Petitioner/OP to appear before the District Forum on the said date and file its written version and pay the costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant. Petitioner/OP shall also pay previous costs of Rs.500/- imposed vide order dated 22.7.14 by the Ld. District Forum. Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with the law.
6.           The revision petition stands allowed.
7.           The District forum shall make endeavor to dispose of the complaint case as expeditiously as possible.
8.           A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.

 

          File be consigned to Record Room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)