Delhi

StateCommission

FA/802/2013

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKBAR AHMED - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

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

 

Date of Decision :17.02.2017

First Appeal No. 802/13

 

(Arising out of the order dated 14.06.13 passed in Complaint Case No.940/12 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi.)

 

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.

C-48, Okhala Industrial Area

Phase-II, New Delhi-110 020

Through Authorized Signatory.

……Appellant

Versus

Akbar Ahmed

R/o N – 69, South Avenue,

Sainik Farms,

New Delhi.

…Respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.          This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to order dated 14.6.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave (in short, ‘the District Forum’), New Delhi District in CC No. 940/12.
2.          Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has submitted that an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with order II rule 2 of CPC for dismissal of complaint case was filed by it before the Ld. District Forum.  It is stated that the reply to the said application was filed by the respondent/complainant opposing the said application. Thereafter, the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the said application vide order 14.6.13.
3.          The grievances of the appellant/OP is that a specific plea was raised by the appellant/OP in para 5 of the aforesaid application that in respect of relief claimed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, a Civil Suit bearing no. 129/12 was filed by him in the Saket District Courts, Delhi. It is stated that all the necessary particulars of the case as well as the details of the aforesaid Civil suit were also given before the Ld. District Forum. However, while disposing the aforesaid application, the Ld. District Forum did not decide of the aforesaid objection. It is contended in view of Civil Suit the complaint is not maintainable before the Ld. District Forum.
4.          Counsel for the respondent/complainant has conceded that aforesaid objection is not decided by the Ld. District Forum while passed the impugned order. Ld. Counsel states that respondent/complainant has no objection if, matter is remanded back so that the application can be decided a fresh.
5.          With the consent of the respondent/complainant, the impugned order dated 14.6.13 is set aside. It is stated that the complaint case is adjourned sin-e-die  before the Ld. district Forum.
6.          The parties shall appear before the Ld. District Forum on 21.4.2017. Thereupon, the District Forum shall give a date to the parties for hearing on the aforesaid application and shall decide the same afresh after hearing both the parties on all the objections raised therein.
7.          Appeal stands allowed.
8.          A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave.

         File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

                                                              

 

ak