Delhi

StateCommission

A/425/2015

URMILA DEVI SADH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME TIME LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision:29.09.2015

 

First Appeal- 425/2015

 

(Arising out of the order dated 13.07.2015 passed in Complainant Case No. 386/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

 

Smt. Urmila Devi Sadh,

Wife of Late Shri Rajender Mani,

R/o D-815, New Friends Colony,

New Delhi-110025.

•  

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.,

Plot No.4, Unit No.101,

DDA Centre, Laxmi Nagar,

Delhi-110092.

                                                ….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

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. In this appeal, challenge is made to order dated 13.7.15 by which the complaint case filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum has been dismissed in default.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum wherein direction was sought against the respondent/OP to pay Rs. 1 lac towards damages and compensation as there was untrade practice on the part of respondent/OP.  It was alleged that some of the cheques given by the appellant/complainant towards repayment of loan were misused by the respondent/OP.
3. It is submitted that the complaint was not yet admitted and prior to admission, the complaint case was dismissed on 13.7.15 due to non-appearance of Counsel for the appellant/complainant.
4. It is stated that on 13.7.15, the Counsel for the appellant could not appear before the District Forum as he was held up in other court.  It is stated that non-appearance was neither intentional nor willful.  Copy of the relevant page of the diary has been shown to substantiate that the Counsel was held up in another court on 13.7.15.  The affidavit of the Counsel is also there in support of the stand taken in the application.
5. We find no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Counsel for the appellant.  In view of the reasoning given, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original position.
6. Appellant/complainant shall appear before the District Forum on 16.11.2015.  Thereafter, the District Forum shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
7. A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be sent to the District Forum.

 

8. File be consigned to record room.

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

sa