IN THE STATE COMMISSION

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

Date of Decision: 31.10.2014

First Appeal No. – 925/2014

Indraprastha Gas Limited

IGL Bhawan, Plot No.-4,

Community Centre, Sector-9

R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110022.

                                                                                      …….Appellant

Versus

Yoginder Prakash Bakshi

S/o Late Sh. H.C. Bakshi

R/o House No. A3/43

Indian Airlines Colony,

Vasant Vihar

New Delhi-110057.

                                                                                  …….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor - Member

N P Kaushik- Member (Judicial)

Justice Veena Birbal, President 

            Heard on admission. Admit. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up today.

            In this appeal challenge has been made to order dated 20.08.2014 by which the appellant has been proceeded ex-parte.

            The Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that a consumer complaint was filed against appellant/OP with the allegation of deficiency in service in not refunding the money. It is further submitted that on 26.11.2013 appellant had filed written statement which was treated by the District Forum as application on the issue of maintainability. The said application was dismissed on 29.04.2014 and the appellant was directed to file detail reply and matter was adjourned to 05.06.2014. It is stated on the said date the counsel for the appellant requested time for filing detail reply and the matter was adjourned to 20.08.2014. However, due to inadvertence the counsel for the appellant noted the next date as 10.09.2014 instead of 20.08.2014. It is submitted that the appellant had appeared before the District Forum on 10.09.2014 but the matter was not found in the list of the District Forum and on enquiry it was found that due to non-appearance of appellant he has been proceeded ex-parte on 20.08.2014.

                   Ld. counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had throughout been pursuing the matter and on 20.08.2014 appellant could not appear due to bonafide mistake and for the reasons as have been above stated above.

                   There is also an affidavit of Sh. S.H. Suraj, Deputy Manager of the appellant Company in support of the reasoning given for non-appearance.

                   Nothing contrary is pointed out by the respondent.

                   From the above, we find that the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause due to which he could not appear on 20.08.2014. There is nothing on record to show that non-appearance was deliberate or that appellant is trying to delay the matter.

                   In view of the above discussion, we set-aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2014, subject to costs of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent.

                   Parties to appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed i.e. 13.01.2015. On the said appellant/OP shall pay costs to the respondent and thereafter the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

                   Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

                   Copy of this order be sent to concerned District Forum. File be consigned to record room.