Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/24/2014

Sterling Holiday Resorts(India) Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Neelakshi Chopra - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashim Aggarwal Adv.

21 Jul 2014

ORDER

 
Revision Petition No. RP/24/2014
(Arisen out of Order Dated 01/04/2014 in Case No. CC/99/2014 of District DF-I)
 
1. Sterling Holiday Resorts(India) Ltd.
UT
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ms. Neelakshi Chopra
W/o Sh. P.K.Chopra, House No. 92, Sector-11/A, Chandigarh
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT
  DEV RAJ MEMBER
  PADMA PANDEY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., 

Revision Petition No.

:

24 of 2014

Date of Institution

:

04.07.2014

Date of Decision

:

21/07/2014

 

1. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., SCO 186-187, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

2. Sterling Holiday Resorts (India) Ltd., 163, TTK Road, Alwarpet, Cheenai-600018

…… Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties

 

V E R S U S

 

Ms. Neelakshi Chopra, w/o Sh. P.K. Chopra, H.No.92, Sector 11-A, Chandigarh.

....Respondent/complainant

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

               

               

               

Argued by:     PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             

2.          The facts of the Consumer Complaint, bearing No.99 of 2014, are that, the complainant purchased a Holiday Time Share, from the Opposite Parties, on the assurance that

3.          nd

4.          

5.          

6.          .    

7.               

8.               

9.               . He further submitted that the absence of the Opposite Parties/Revision-Petitioners, on 01.04.2014, in the District Forum, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons aforesaid.   

10.           On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted thatthe absence of the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties, on01.04.2014,despite deemed service, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate.

11.       the application filed before the District Forum, for setting aside the exparte proceedings order dated 01.04.2014, was also dismissed by it, on the ground, that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in

12.       

13.       

14.           

15.           According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, every complaint is required to be decided, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party, except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory, for examination. In that event, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). 

16.           

17.           

18.             The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e.

19.           

20.           

Pronounced

July 21, 2014

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        

Rg

 
 
[ JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]]
PRESIDENT
 
[ DEV RAJ]
MEMBER
 
[ PADMA PANDEY]
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.