Delhi

StateCommission

A/517/2015

SMT. PHOOLWATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

                                                   Date of Decision: 03.12.2015

First Appeal No. 517/2015

(Arising out of the order dated 04.09.2015 passed in complaint case No. 620/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

Smt. Phoolwati

W/o Late Sh. Hoshiyar Singh

R/o Plot No. 10, Khasra No. 126/2

Pole No. 2132, VPO Rajpur Khurd

New Delhi-110074

Through her Son

Manish Kumar                                                       Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. The Manager

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

VPO Adhicini, New Delhi-110016

 

2. The General Manager

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

BESS Bhawan, Nehru Place

New Delhi                                                    Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                                    -                       Member (Judicial)

S C JAIN                                             -                       Member

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

Judgement

1.      Heard the appellant on the application of condonation of delay. The delay in filing the present appeal is of twenty one days. Contention of the appellant is that he received the certified copy of the impugned orders late. In the circumstances, delay of twenty one days in filing the appeal is condoned. 
2.      Heard on admission.
3.      Admit.
4.      Present appeal is directed against the orders dt. 04.09.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum-II. Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant herein was dismissed on the grounds of non-prosecution. The orders is reproduced below:

“Case No. 620/12

1.  

Present:    None for Complainant.

Sh. A.K.Jha, Adv. for OP.

It is now 12:15 p.m. None was also present on behalf of the Complainant on the previous date. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint in default.

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for OP and copy be also sent to the Complainant through Speed Post. File be consigned to record room.”

5.      Contention of the complainant/appellant is that he reached District Forum-II late and took down a wrong date. The date taken down by him in his diary was 08.09.2015 whereas the matter was actually fixed for 04.09.2015. It was due to his absence on 04.09.2015 that the complaint was dismissed in default. We have no reasons to disbelieve the contention putforth by the appellant. In the circumstances, appeal is allowed. Orders dt. 04.09.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum-II are set aside. Complaint bearing No. 620/2012 is restored to its original number. Complainant/appellant to appear in the District Forum on 11.12.2015.
6.      Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and one copy be sent to the District Forum-II.
7.      FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released as per rules.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

(S C JAIN)

MEMBER