Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/11/2011

Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Universal Disabled Care Taker Social Welfare Soceity (Regd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Devinder Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv.for Revision Petitioner

16 Dec 2011

ORDER


The State Consumer Disputes Redressal CommissionUnion Territory,Chandigarh ,Plot No 5-B, Sector No 19B,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 019
REVISION PETITION NO. 11 of 2011
1. Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd.(Authorised Maruti Suzuki Dealer, Plot No. 112-113, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Managing Direcotr Sh. Nitin Mehan ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Universal Disabled Care Taker Social Welfare Soceity (Regd.)Village Padiala, Tehsil Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 16 Dec 2011
ORDER

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.

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                  

Revision Petition No.

:

11 of 2011

Date of Institution

:

23.11.2011

Date of Decision

:

16.12.2011

 

Autopace Networks Pvt. Ltd. (Authorized Maruti Suzuki Dealer), Plot No.112-113, Phase I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Managing Director Sh. Nitin Mehan.

…… Petitioner/OP

V e r s u s

Universal Disabled Care Taker Social Welfare Society (Regd.), Village Padiala, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

              ....Respondent/complainant

 

Revision Petition under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:     MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

                  

Argued by: Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh. P.K. Kukreja, Adv. for the petitioner.

                   Sh. Kumar Nikshep, Adv. for the respondent.

 

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    The respondent/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) asking for compensation for harassment and for the supply of documents i.e. sale letters etc. for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority.  Its contention is that a Maruti van was purchased by it from the petitioner/OP; that the possession of the van has been delivered to it but the OP has not issued any documents i.e. sale letter etc. for getting the vehicle registered due to which the complainant was facing problems in the proper use of the vehicle. 

2.                     A notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioner/OP for 9.11.2011 and when the process server went on 10.10.2011 to deliver the notice and the documents, to the OP/petitioner, it refused to accept the notice.  As none appeared on behalf of the OP on 9.11.2011, it was accordingly proceeded against exparte by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

3.                     After hearing the exparte arguments of the respondent/complainant, the case was reserved for orders.  However, in the meantime, the petitioner/OP filed the present revision petition for setting aside the exparte order dated 9.11.2011 alleging that it was never served; that summons were never offered nor any official of their company refused to accept the same.

4.                     A notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent/complainant upon which its Counsel has put in appearance.

5.                     We have heard the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 

6.                     The ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the intention of the petitioner/OP is to delay the proceedings of the case and for that purpose it refused to accept the summons and had been rightly proceeded against exparte.  It was, however, alleged that if appropriate costs are awarded, he has no objection to the setting aside of the exparte order.

7.                     The ld. Counsel for the petitioner/OP has contended that it never refused to receive any summons from the Courts or the Consumer Fora.  However, there is no evidence to that effect. The fact of the matter is that in the present case it did not accept the notice when the same was tendered for service.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the impugned order dated 9.11.2011 is set aside and the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to present its case before the ld. District Forum, however, subject to payment of costs.

8.                     We accordingly accept the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 9.11.2011, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. The OP/petitioner shall file its written reply and evidence in the shape of affidavit(s) alongwith documents, on which it relies upon to prove its case, before the District Forum on 21.12.2012 after paying the amount of costs in the shape of a bank draft in favour of the complainant. No further opportunity would be granted to the OP/petitioner for this purpose.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

16th December, 2011

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg

 


HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBERHON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER ,