State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Mehboob Akhtar. vs Sh. Ravi Kant Pathak. on 29 March, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 07/2016
Date of Presentation:11.01.2016
Date of Decision: 29.03.2016
.....................................................................................
Mehboob Akhtar,
Son of Shri Naim Akhtar,
Proprietor of M/s. Mehboob Akhtar Force,
NH 21, Village Bhour, Post Office Kanaid,
Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
... Appellant.
Versus
Ravi Kant Pathak,
Son of late Shri D.N Pathak,
Resident of Village & Post Office Chatrokhari,
Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
...Respondent
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,
Advocate, vice Mr.Vijay
Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Subhas Sharma, Advocate
.......................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) M.A.No.134/2016.
Cheque No.000019 dated 21.03.2016 amounting to `1,32,000/-, has been tendered by opposite party, for deposit. The money be invested 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Mehboob Akhtar Versus Ravi Kant Pathak (F.A. No. 07/2016) in the same bank, with which initial deposit was made. Disposed of.
F.A. No.07/2016
Counsel appearing for the respondent / complainant says that since the objection taken in the grounds of appeal has been raised for the first time, before this Commission, as the appellant/ opposite party was ex-parte before learned District Forum, it would be appropriate, in the fitness of things and also in the interest of justice, if the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum, with the direction to decide the same afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellant/ opposite party, to file reply and defend itself.
3. Hence, the appeal is allowed, impugned order set aside and the matter is remanded to learned District Forum with the direction to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity to the appellant to file reply and to defend itself.
2
Mehboob Akhtar Versus Ravi Kant Pathak (F.A. No. 07/2016)
4. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi , on 30.04.2016.
5. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member March 29, 2016.
dkm) 3