Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/11/628

PARAS COMPUTER - Complainant(s)

Versus

VICKY RAGHUVANSHI - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2021

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

 

FA No.628 / 2011.

Manager,

Paras Computer Seva,

Paras Sahitya Sadan,

Laxmi Ganj, Guna,

District Guna (M.P.).                                                            …. APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

Vikky Raghuvanshi,

s/o Shri Veerendra Raghuvanshi,

R/o Annapurna Colony, Guna,

District Guna (M.P.).                                                            …. RESPONDENT.

 

 

As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :

 

Date of                                          O R D E R                                                   

Order                                                                                                                 

 

 

17.2.2021                  Shri Devendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

                                    None for the respondent though served and inspite of issuance of SPC.

                                    Heard.

                        2.         This appeal arises out of the order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short the ‘District Commission’) in CC No.235/2010 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and future loss within 45 days failing which

it shall carry interest @9% p.a.  In addition, Rs.1000/- has been ordered to be awarded towards costs.

 

• 2 -

 

                        3.         The case of the respondent before the District Commission was that because of negligence of the appellant, he could not appear in PET Examination of M.P. Professional Examination Board of the year 2010.  By way of an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. the appellant has filed documents indicating therein that in fact the respondent had appeared through Acropolis Institute of Technologh & Research in the said PET Examination of the year 2010 and as such on the basis of suppression of fact he got the impugned order passed.

                        4.         Having gone through the said application, we are of the view that for fair and just decision of the complaint the documents are necessary to be taken on record. 

                        5.         In the circumstances, by allowing the said application, we direct the District Commission that the said documents be taken on record.  The matter is remanded to the District Commission for fresh decision in accordance with law.  The impugned order is set-aside.

                        6.         The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 31^st March, 2021.

                        7.         The documents filed with IA/5 be sent to the District Commission along with the record.  

                       

                          (Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar)                    (S. S. Bansal)      

                   ^{PRESIDENT                                                                             MEMBER}   

 

 

 

Phadke