H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Rev. Pet. No. 15/2008.

Date of Decision 24.04.2009.

M/s Smart Communications Ltd. Nahari Sadan,

Kasumpti Shimla through its Manager Incharge.



……..Petitioner.

Versus



Smt. Neha Sood Do Sh. Kamal Kumar R/o Thakur Niwas

Bye Pass Road, Kather Subzi Mandi, Solan, Tehsil & Distt. Solan, HP.



…….Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Petitioner. Mr. Narinder Sharma, Advocate.



For the Respondent. Mr. Dalip Kaith, Advocate with Smt. Neha Sood

who has been identified as such by Mr. Kaith.





O R D E R:



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



Petitioner is aggrieved from the order dated 12.12.2008 whereby right to file its version in response to the complaint has been closed.

2. A perusal of the complaint file shows, that the petitioner put in appearance for the first time on 4.7.2008 when case was adjourned to 4th September, 2008. On this date an application was filed seeking direction to the respondent to provide the documents/Annexures referred to by her in her complaint and or relied by her, so that it could prepare its proper reply to the complaint and file the same. This application is there on the complaint file. There is no mention of this application in the order of 4.9.2008. Suffice it to say in this behalf, that before passing the orders on 30.8.2008 and 12.12.2008, District Forum below ought to have disposed of this application either way. In these circumstances, we are of the view that right to file its version by the petitioner in response to the complaint of the respondent was not justifiable. Accordingly the order dated 12.12.2008 needs to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent further stated that he has no objection to the application under Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, readwith order 7 Rule 14 of CPC being allowed as his client is ready and willing to provide the copy of the document(s) filed alongwith the complaint. He further stated that in case during the course of proceedings in the complaint any documents are filed in support of the claim, copies of such documents will also be provided by the respondent to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, as also keeping in view the stand of the respondent, this revision petition is allowed in the following terms:-

A) That the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by District Forum Solan in Consumer Complaint No. 51/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside;



B) Application under Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 readwith Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is allowed as a result of it, respondent is directed to provide copies of the documents/Annexures attached with the complaint and if any other or further documents are filed during the course of proceedings before the District Forum below, those would also be supplied by the respondent to the petitioner and in the like manner by the petitioner to the respondent; and





C) So far order of cost assessed on 30.9.2008 is concerned, the same is upheld. Since record is here parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear at Solan on 8.5.2009 when respondent shall provide copy of the documents attached with the complaint and the District Forum below is now directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law by allowing one opportunity to the petitioner for filing reply to the complaint and dispose of the complaint on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence/documents as may be filed by them before it. Subject to the above directions this revision petition stands disposed of.



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

Office will ensure that record is transmitted well before the date fixed.

Shimla.

24th April, 2009. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

d.kZ* President.





(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.