Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

M/S Scc Builder Pvt. Ltd. vs Pankaj Bala Jain on 21 November, 2013

  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

 
 
 







 



 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION :   DELHI 

 

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

 

  

  Date
of Decision :
21.11.2013 

 

  

 First
Appeal  1157/2013 

 

  

 

(Arising
out of the order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the District Forum(East),
Saini Enclave, Delhi in complaint case No. 623/2013) 

 

  

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

M/s SCC Builder Pvt. Ltd., 
   

Off-D/218-A, 2nd Floor,
  Vivek Vihar, 
   

Delhi-110 095 
   

  
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

 .........Appellant 
  
 


 VS 

 

  

 
   
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
  
   
   

Smt. Pankaj
  Bala Jain, 
   

W/o sh. Vinod
  Jain, 
   

R/o C-12, Street No.5, Jyoti Colony, Shahdara,
  Delhi-32 
   

  
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

....Respondent  
   

  
  
 


 

CORAM 

 

Justice Barkat
Ali Zaidi, President 

 

  

 

1.

Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

   

JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT  

1. In a complaint case bearing No.623/2013 Smt. Pankaj Bala Jain vs. M/s SCC Builders Pvt. Ltd. filed before District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi 7.10.2013 was fixed for appearance of the OP when the OP did not appear and the Forum ordered to proceed ex-parte against him.

 

2. That is what brings the OP /appellant in appeal before this Commission for setting aside the said ex-parte order.

 

3. We have heard Shri Rajesh Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant in this appeal at the admission stage as there is no need to hear the respondent.

 

4. The version of the appellant OP for his non appearance is that the counsel who was representing his case was struck off in traffic and got late that is how the default occurred. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve or not to rely and act upon this version of the appellant. Besides, it has always been the consistent policy of the courts to allow a little latitude, so that the parties may contest the case on merits, and an effective order may be passed. For this reason, and that the inconvenience caused to the respondent/complainant may be compensated in terms of money, the appeal is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/-, which the appellant will pay to the respondent/complainant within one month. Order dated 7.10.2013 passed by the District Forum against the appellant/OP is set aside with the direction to the District Forum that it will allow the appellant/OP to file the WS and evidence and decide the case after hearing both the parties. The appellant is directed to appear, through his counsel, before the District Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi on 26.11.2013, the date fixed in this case.

 

5. Copy of this order be sent to District Forum(East), Saini Enclave, Delhi for information and to keep it on record and compliance.

 

(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President   Arya