Date of decision: 10.10.2014
Revision Petition- 55/2014
Sri Balaji Action Medical
Institute (A unit of Lala
Munni Lal Mange Ram
Charitable Trust)
A-4, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063.
…..Appellant
VERSUS
1. Smt. Manpreet Kaur,
W/o Sh. P.S. Oberoi
R/o A-19, Street No. 10,
Krishna Puri, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
2. Dr. Monu Singh,
165, (2nd Floor)
Ambica Vihar
New Delhi-110087
3. Dr. A.K. Jain,
C/o Sri Balaji Action Medical
Institute, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
4. Dr. Suneel
C/o Sri Balaji Action Medical
Institute, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
…..Respondents
CORAM
Justice Veena Birbal, President
N P Kaushik, 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) Respondent has been served. However, no one has appeared for the respondent.
2) The Petitioner has impugned the following order:-
“10.10.2013
Pr. Complainant in person.
Complainant has placed on record that the notice was sent at the address of the respondent personally on 24.07.2013. None has appeared on their behalf. Waited till 3:00 p.m. OP proceeded ex-parte. For ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Put up on 11.12.2013.”
3) Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner i.e./OP could not appear on 10.10.2013 as the petitioner was not duly served before the District Forum. It is submitted that the there is no affidavit of the concerned person who is alleged to have taken the Dasti notice and allegedly served the notice upon the petioner/OP.
4) It is submitted that the District Forum acted in haste without satisfying itself whether the notice was duly served upon the petitioner or not.
5) It is submitted that the petitioner had come to know about the complaint case only when notice was served upon petitioner for production of treatment paper of the deceased. It is submitted that there was no proper service on petitioner. It is submitted that the District Forum had given dasti notices for service. It is submitted that there is no affidavit of respondent/complainant to show whom the notice was delivered.
6) There is no rebuttal to the submissions of the petitioner as none has appered for the respondent despite being served.
7) We find no reason to disbelieve reasoning given by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside, subject to payments of costs of Rs. 3000/-.
Petitioner shall appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed i.e. 22.01.2015 and shall pay the costs to respondent thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
Copy of this order be sent to the concerned District Forum.
