State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Satya Prakash Shukla vs Vardhman Properties Ltd. on 30 January, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 30.1.2013 Revision petition 30/2011 (Arising out of the order dated 8.7.2009 passed by the District Forum-X, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint case No. 573/2008) Satya Prakash Shukla, RZ-231/298, Lane No.4, Geetanjali Park, Sagarpur (West), New Delhi .........Appellant VS Vardhman Properties Ltd., G-9, Vardhman Trade Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110 019 .....Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President S.A. Siddiqui, Member(Judicial) 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. On the prayer of the Counsel for the Revisionist this Revision Petition is treated as appeal. In a complaint case bearing No.573/2008 Satya Prakash Shukla vs. Vardhman properties Ltd. before District Forum-X, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, the Complainant absented himself on 8.7.2009, and the Forum dismissed the complaint on account of non appearance of the complainant.
2. That is what brings the Complainant/appellant in appeal before this Commission.
3. We have heard Mithlesh Kumar Panday, Counsel for the Appellant at the admission stage itself in this appeal, as none appeared on behalf of the respondent at the time of hearing.
4. The version of the complainant is that Counsel for the complainant Sh. Deepak Patkak had told the complainant need not to appear in the case for the reason that he, being the Counsel, will represent him, but his counsel did not appear and the default occurred.
5. There is no plausible reason not to believe or not to rely on this version of the appellant. Besides it has been the consistent policy of the courts to be a bit lenient while dealing with restoration applications, because the purpose of law is fulfilled only when a case is decided on merits. We therefore, allow the appeal by setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Forum, and remand the case back to District Forum-II, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi with a direction to restore the complaint to its original number, and to decide it on merits after hearing both the parties. The Appellant Complainant, through his Counsel, is directed to appear before the District Forum-X, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi on 11.4.2013.
6. Copy of this order be sent to District Forum-X, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi to keep it on record and for compliance.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President ( S.A. Siddiqui) Member(Judicial) Arya