State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pankaj Motors vs Mandeep Singh on 18 October, 2011
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No.17 of 2011
Date of institution: 04.03.2011
Date of decision : 18.10.2011
Pankaj Motors, G.T. Road, Moga through its registered partner Sh. Dwarka Nath
Bansal.
.....Petitioners
Versus
1. Mandeep Singh aged 30 years son of Sujan Singh Brar Advocate son of
Chattar Singh resident of Moga Road, Bagha Purana, District Moga.
...Complainant-Respondent
2. National Insurance Co. Division No.10, Flat No.101-106 N-1 BMC House,
Connaught Place, New Delhi, Branch Moga.
.....Respondent
Revision Petition against the order dated
01.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Mr.Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Present:-
For the petitioners : Sh.V.Ram Swaroop, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.P.K.Kataria, Advocate with Shri Sujan Singh Brar father of the complainant respondent For respondent No.2 : Sh.B.S.Taunque, Advocate JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT Mandeep Singh respondent No.1 had filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondent No.2. The petitioners and respondent No.2 had appeared before the District Forum and filed the written statement. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioners filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement. That application was contested by the complainant respondent and also by respondent No.2 on the plea that it will change the nature of the present complaint. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 1.3.2011.
2. Hence, this petition.
Revision Petition No.17 of 2011 2
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the amendment in the written statement is necessary in order to ensure the right decision of the case.
4. As per the settled proposition of law, parties should be allowed to amend the pleadings if they want to do. However, the opposite parties can be compensated by way of costs.
5. Accordingly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 1.3.2011 is set aside. The petitioners are burdened with costs of Rs.20,000/-, out of which, Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to respondent No.1 and Rs.5000/- shall be payable to respondent No.2. The petitioners would be at liberty to amend the written statement and, thereafter, the complainant respondent and respondent No.2 would be at liberty to file the pleadings to the amended written statement of the petitioners.
6. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 14.11.2011. The petitioners would tender the costs in the District Forum on 14.11.2011 for onward payment to the complainant respondent and respondent No.2 and, thereafter, the learned District Forum shall grant an opportunity to the petitioners to file the amended written statement. If the petitioners failed to make the payment of costs on the date fixed in the District Forum, then the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. If for any other reason, 14.11.2011 is holiday or the Forum is not functioning on that day, the date could have been changed by the District Forum to any other date.
7. The learned District Forum is directed to dispose of the complaint at the earliest preferably within 3 months after appearance of the parties before the District Forum.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER October 18, 2011.
Paritosh