Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

RP/15/1

TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SNEHALKUMAR S/O SHIVDAS MADAME - Opp.Party(s)

AMARDEEP A.CHAWARE

16 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH
NAGPUR
 
Revision Petition No. RP/15/1
( Date of Filing : 13 Jan 2015 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 13/11/2014 in Case No. cc/26/2013 of District Nagpur)
 
1. TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD
POST OFFICE NO-4,HARITA HOSURE,TAMILNADU
TAMILNADU
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SNEHALKUMAR S/O SHIVDAS MADAME
NEW FRIENDS COLONY ,KHAT ROAD,BHANDRA
BHANDARA
2. JAIMAL TVS PVT LTD.COMPANY
NEAR INDRALOK SABAGRUH,BHANADRA
BHANDARA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
None
 
For the Respondent:
Adv. Smt. Kamble for respondent No. 1
 
Dated : 16 Nov 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

(Passed On 16/11/2015)

Per Mr. B.A. Shaikh, Hon’ble Presiding Member

  1. None is present for the revision petitioner. Adv. Smt. Kamble is present for respondent No. 1. On perusal of the earlier daily proceeding shows that on last date also none had appeared for the revision petitioner. Advocate of the respondent No. 1 submitted that she has no objection if the impugned order is set aside subject to reasonable cost. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 13/11/2014 by which  the complaint has been proceed exparte against the original OP No. 2/petitioner herein, as petitioner failed to appear before the Forum despite service of notice.
  1. The revision petition shows that the petitioner/OP No. 2 had appeared through its advocate before Forum on 13/11/2014 and moved an application to set aside that exparte order. However it was rejected. The advocate of the respondent No. 1 submitted that written version was also filed by OP No. 2 before the Forum but it was filed after the impugned exparte was passed against the OP No. 2/petitioner herein. In our view  the petitioner’s advocate had appeared subsequent to  but passing of the impugned order before the Forum. Hence it  needs to set aside for giving the petitioner an opportunity  to contest the complaint,  subject to reasonable cost. The revision petition is thus  allowed as under.

ORDER

  1. The impugned order dated 13/11/2014 passed by the Forum is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-to be paid  by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1/complainant. The said cost be paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1 or deposited with the Forum below on or before 16/12/2015 and in case of default, the revision petition would be treated as dismissed. On making of the payment or deposited as above of the said cost, the Forum shall give an opportunity to the petitioner/OP No. 2  to appear in the proceeding of the complaint and to contest the same.
  2. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost and its one copy be forwarded to the District Forum, Bhandara for information.
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH]
JUDICIAL 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.