H.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA-9.

F.A. No. 09 of 2009

Decided on 5.5.2009.



M/s Vishwakarma Refrigration Works,

Village Tharu (Nagrota Bagwan)

Tehsil and District Kangra (H.P).

Though its Proprietor.

.....Appellant.

Versus



M/s Pinki Sweet Shop Chadhiar,

Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P.

Through its Proprietor Sh. Ravinder Kumar,

Son of late Sh. Jaisi Ram.

….Respondent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharna, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting ?



For the Appellant. Mr.Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate.



For the Respondent. Mr. J.L.Sharma, Advocate.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.



1. Only ground urged in support of this appeal by Mr. Rathore is, that his client was not served in proceedings before District Forum below in accordance with law. Therefore this appeal deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. While buttressing this submission learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order tentamounts to condemning his client, without affording him an opportunity of being heard behind his back, therefore it is not only against law, but also against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. As such on this ground also this appeal deserves to be allowed.



2. What was urged on behalf of the appellant if made out from the complaint file, then we have no option but for allowing this appeal. In these circumstances it was considered necessary to refer to the complaint file.



3. Complaint was filed before the District Forum below on 18.12.2007 as is evident from the presentation made on the complaint when ,it was ordered that office to check and report forthwith, and thereafter notice be issued to the appellant for 21.2.2008 for its service.


4. On this date i.e 21.2.2008, appellant-opposite party was duly represented by its Advocate Sh. Jitender Sharma. Case was ordered to be adjourned to 5.4.2008 for filing reply and regular Power of Attorney. On 5.4.2008, Mr. S.S.Nanda appeared vice counsel for appellant-opposite party, i.e. Mr. Jitender Sharma. He stated that reply was not ready as mother-in-law of the counsel was ill and was admitted in hospital. Case was ordered to be listed on 23.5.2008 for filing reply.



5. In this background when case came up on 23.5.2008, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and it was then that ex-parte proceedings were ordered against it. Case was ordered to be listed on 1.7.2008 for ex-parte evidence. When ex-parte evidence was produced and case was ordered to be listed for arguments on 25.7.2008, when complaint was allowed.



6. Another fact that needs to be mentioned here is that for 21.2.2008, the appellant was duly served through registered post and its acknowledgement due is at page-31 of the complaint file. Besides signatures of the person who received it, which bears the postal stamp of Nagrota Bagwan, Post Office dated 18.1.2008. In the light of all these facts, submission urged on behalf of the appellant that it was not duly served and or was condemned un-heard without affording it an opportunity being heard, is a plea raised simply to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.



7. Faced with this situation Sh. Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant urged that subject to terms, the impugned order may be set aside and thereafter case be remitted back to the District Forum below to dispose of the same after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to his client. We are unable to agree with this submission.

From the detailed facts noted in the proceedings paras, prayer of the appellant cannot be favourably considered for remand of the case by setting aside the impugned order even on terms, this prayer was seriously resisted by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent.



8. Even otherwise on examination of the complaint file we are satisfied that respondent had been able to establish his case for the grant of relief allowed by the District Forum below while allowing the complaint. This is the additional ground to uphold the impugned order while dismissing this appeal. Ordered accordinlgy.



9. No other point was urged.



10. In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no substance in this appeal which is dismissed while upholding the order of District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala in Consumer Complaint No.

394/ 2007 dated 25.7.2008.



11. All interim orders passed in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



12. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.



(Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

President





(Saroj Sharma) Member





(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member