Delhi

StateCommission

A/431/2018

SH. PRAVEEN CHAUHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TDI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANJEEV CHAUHAN

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 29.10.2018

 

First Appeal No.431/2018

Arising out of the order dated 06.06.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 27-A/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VII), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi)

 

Shri Praveen Chauhan,  

S/O Late Sh. Rohtash Kumar,

R/O Village Chellera, Gali No.3

Sector-44, Noida (Uttar Pradesh.                                             …..Appellant

 

Versus

 

TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

UG floor, Vandana Building,

Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                  .….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

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 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) wherein prayer is made for recalling of order dated 04.06.2018 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(VI), New Delhi, (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.27-A/2013, by which the aforesaid complaint has been dismissed for non appearance. The aforesaid order reads as under:

 

“Date: 04.06.2018

Present: None

  Late the complainant be awaited till 2:00 PM.

 

 

 

Now it is 3:00 PM.

None appeared on behalf of the complainant despite repeated calls. File perused it is found that none appeared on behalf of the complainant from the last

 

 

 

 

2. Counsel for appellant/complainant has submitted that matter had already been heard by the Ld. District Forum and was reserved for orders on 24.07.2015. However, no order was passed despite being awaited sufficient time. Thereafter, appellant/complainant received a notice for re-arguments and the appellant/complainant appeared before the District Forum on 08.11.2016. Ld. District Forum heard the arguments of appellant/complainant on the said date. Since, respondent/OP did not appear Ld. District Forum adjourned the matter for arguments of respondent/OP. Thereafter, District Forum due to heavy pendency did not hear the matter and the matter was adjourned for arguments from time to time. It is stated that since appellant/complainant had already argued the matter and respondent/OP had to argue the mater in these circumstances District Forum ought not have dismissed the complaint for non-appearance.
3. Perusal of order sheets shows that appellant/complainant had already argued the matter twice and non-appearance before the District Forum was for the reasons as has been stated above. If respondent/OP was not putting appearance, the District Forum could have decided the matter.
4.      In these circumstances, we accept this appeal set aside the order and restore the complaint to its original position.
5. Let parties appear before District Forum on 03.01.2019. Before proceeding further in the matter, District Forum shall issue fresh notice to respondent/OP.
6.   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  

              Thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

• President