Haryana

StateCommission

A/228/2015

AJAY SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ST.MARY'S SR.SEC.SCHOOL - Opp.Party(s)

NIKHLIL SHARMA

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :           228 of 2015

Date of Institution:          10.03.2015

Date of Decision :           10.09.2015

 

1.      Mr. Ajay Sharma, Flat No.6, A-12A, Sainik Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.

2.      Ms. Preeti Verma, C-1/297, Gali No.24, C Block, Khajoorikhas, New Delhi.

                                      Appellants-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Principal St. Mary’s Senior Secondary School, Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Ajay Sharma, appellant in person with Shri Nikhil Joshi and Ms. Bhavna Joshi, Advocates.

Father Jas, respondent in person with Shri Amardeep Hooda, Advocate.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

 

The instant appeal has been preferred by Ajay Sharma and another-opposite parties (appellants) against the order dated April 02^nd, 2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Rohtak, whereby, complaint filed by Principal St. Mary’s Senior Secondary School-complainant was accepted.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“5.     In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.2,24,485/- to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

    

2.      The complainant asked the appellants to install CCTV Camera, Water Purification System, V Guard etc in the school premises.  The complainant paid Rs.2,44,485/- to the appellants.  The appellants failed to complete the work.  The complainant sought refund from the appellants but to no avail.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the appellants but appellants did not appear and proceeded ex parte before the District Forum.

4.      Since the appellants were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and as such they could not contest the complaint on merits, it would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the appellants to contest the complaint on merits. Thus, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The appellants are accorded opportunity to join the proceedings and parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etc.  The case is remitted to the District Forum, Rohtak. 

5.       The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 06.10.2015.

6.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

 

Announced: 10.09.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

U.K