Delhi

StateCommission

A/349/2017

SUDHANSHU BHASIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TIVOLI GARDEN RESORT HOTEL - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL MISHRA

31 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

 

 

Date of Decision: 31.07.2017

 

 

First Appeal- 349/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 01.06.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.92/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (II), New Delhi)

 

 

Shri Sudhanshu Bhasin

S/o Shri Krishan Kumar Bhasin,

R/o I-58, Lajpat Nagar – 2,

LGF, Behind Central Market,

Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.

                       ….Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

 

Tivoli Garden Resort Hotel,

Khasra No.645-653,

Chattarpur  Mandir Road,

Chattarpur, New Delhi – 110030.

….Respondent

 

 

 

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 under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge is made to order dated 01.06.2017 whereby the CC No.92/2017 has been dismissed by District Forum-II in limine.
2. The impugned order reads as under:

 

“Heard.

He had filed a copy of some agreement with regard to the function which was to be held on 27.03.2017. The averments made in the complaint and legal notice stated to be sent  by the complainant to the OP do not match with each other and differ in material particulars. Therefore, no definite cause of action or consumer dispute is made out in the complaint. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint in limine. Copy be given dasti.”

 

3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/complainant states that proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to the appellant/complainant. It is submitted that a non-speaking order has been passed by the Ld. District Forum.
4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is heard. The impugned order and material annexed with the appeal is also perused.
5. It is noted by the Ld. District Forum in the impugned order that the averments made in the complaint and legal notice stated to be sent by the appellant/complainant do not match with each other and differ from material particular. It has not been stated in the impugned order as to how they differ in material particulars. The same ought to have been stated in the impugned order.
6. It is also submitted that Rs.49,000/- was paid to respondent/OP by way of cheque as advance booking of ‘Hall’. It is submitted that photocopy of cheque and receipt were also placed on record by appellant/complainant. Even the same has not been considered by Ld. District Forum.
7. The order passed is a non-speaking order.
8. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the District Forum for examining the matter afresh.
9. Let appellant/complainant before District Forum-II on 25.08.2017.
10. 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. 

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President