Delhi

StateCommission

RP/211/2016

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TANUSHREE BHALLA - Opp.Party(s)

RAMNISH KHANNA

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 03.01.2017

 

Revision Petition No. 211/2016

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Bharti Airtel Ltd.

        Airtel Centre

        Second Floor, Plot No.- 16

        Udyog Vihar, Phase- 4,

        Gurgaon- 122015

        Though its Senior Manager Legal

        Sh. Amit Bhatia

 

……Appellant     Versus   Tanushree Bhalla B-16/1, Ramesh Nagar (Double Story) New Delhi                                                                             …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

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

        This is a revision petition wherein prayer is made for setting aside order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Janakpuri, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 436/16 whereby the petitioner/OP have has proceeded ex-parte.

        It is stated that on 22.08.2016 an associate of counsel for petitioner/OP had gone to attend the matter before the Ld. District Forum. However, he reached the Forum at about 12 Noon as tyre of his car got flat. It is further stated that the said Associate forgot to take the case diary and his cell phone battery was also discharged due to which he could not get the details of the case in which he had to appear. It is stated on the aforesaid date another matter of petitioner company was listed before the Ld. District Forum and due to some confusion the associate of the counsel for the petitioner could not appear in the aforesaid case and petitioner/OP was proceeded ex-parte. It is stated that non appearance was due to bonafide reasons as has been stated above. It is stated that a great prejudice shall be caused to petitioner/OP in case the impugned order is not set aside as petitioner/OP will not be able to substantiate its defence.

        The respondent/complainant is present in person.

        After some arguments, she has stated that she has no objection if the impugned order is set aside and petitioner/OP be given chance to file written statement subject to payment of costs.

        With the consent of respondent/complainant, we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 7000/- to respondent/complainant. It is stated that the matter is listed before the Ld. District Forum on 04.01.2017.

On the aforesaid date the petitioner/OP shall pay costs of Rs. 7000/- to the respondent/complainant and the District Forum shall give 7 days time to file written statement.

        Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

        A copy of the order be sent to parties as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information.

 

        File be consigned to record room.

                  

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member