Chandigarh

StateCommission

FA/85/2014

Avalon Aviation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurvinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. Jaishree Thakur Adv.

29 Apr 2014

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/85/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )
 
1. Avalon Aviation
Chd.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Gurvinder Singh
S/o Onkar Singh, Village & P.O. Gardley, Tehsil and Distt. Ropar Punjab
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER PRESIDENT
 HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T.,CHANDIGARH

                                                         

First Appeal No.

:

85 of 2014

Date of Institution

:

05.03.2014

Date of Decision

 

29.04.2014

 

1.   Noida,India, through its Director.

 

2.    Avalon Aviation Academy Pvt. Ltd., Aptech House, A-65 MIDC, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai, through its Vice President.

 

3.    Aptech Limited, Aptech House, A-65, MIDC, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai, through its Vice President.

 

……Appellants/Opposite Parties No.2 to 4.

Versus

1.   Gurvinder Singh S/o Onkar Singh, Village & P.O.Punjab.

 

…..Respondent/complainant.

2.   Chandigarh.

 

       IInd Address:

 

       Gurvinder Vir Singh S/o Ajmer Singh, Ex.SDO-PWD, House No. 1179, Sector 79, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

 

 

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:  

               

       Argued by:

                  

Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 6.3.2014. 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

      

“14.       

[a]         

[b]  

[c]   To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 15.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of registration, till it is paid & the compensation amount as mentioned in sub-para [b] above shall carry interest @18% p.a. from the date of the institution of the complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-.” 

2.             

3.          

4.          

5.          

6.          

7.          

8.           

9.          

10.  

11.        

12.        

13.         Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans Vs. Goyal Eye Institute and others, Consumer Complaint No.135 of 2011 decided on 30.03.2012, it was held by the National Commission that the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission are required to examine the complaint to find out (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, and, as such, is entitled to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum; (ii) Whether the complaint raises one or more consumer disputes viz., unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice, defects in goods or deficiency in service as defined under the Act; (iii) Whether the Consumer Forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, to entertain the complaint; (iv) Whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation, and; (v) Whether the complaint is accompanied by such amount of fee, as has been prescribed. The principle of law, laid down in Ramesh Kumar Sihan Hans’s case (supra)

14.        

15.                   

16.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the appellants/Opposite Parties, in their written statements as to whether the complaint was barred by time or not. Thereafter, the District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh, on merits, after affording due opportunity, to the parties of being heard, on the issues, in accordance with law. 

17.        13.05.2014

18.        13.05.2014at 10.30 A.M.

19.        

20.        

Pronounced.

April 29, 2014.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

 

Ad


 

 

STATE COMMISSION

(First Appeal No.85 of 2014)

 

Argued by:

                  

Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with vide order dated 6.3.2014.  

Dated the 29th

 

ORDER

 

           Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal has been accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order passed by the District Forum has been set aside.The case has been remanded back to the District Forum (II), with a direction to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the appellants/Opposite Parties, in their written statements as to whether the complaint was barred by time or not. Thereafter, the District Forum shall decide the complaint afresh, on merits, after affording due opportunity, to the parties of being heard, on the issues, in accordance with law. 

             on 13.05.2014.30 A.M., for further proceedings.

 

 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

    

PRESIDENT

 

Ad

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'ABLE MR. DEV RAJ]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.