National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. vs Grahak Suraksha Jagruti Manch & 3 Ors. on 9 October, 2018
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2093 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 27/04/2018 in Appeal No. 1162/2013 of the State Commission Gujarat) 1. PARLE BISCUITS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NORTH LEVEL CROSSING VILLE PARLE(E) MUMBAI MAHARAHSTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GRAHAK SURAKSHA JAGRUTI MANCH & 3 ORS. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SAHJANAND COMPLEX GHANTIYADA NAKA, GENDI GATE VADODARA GUJARAT 2. NEELABEN RAJESH SALGAVAKAR R/O. 3 GHIYAPARK SOCIETY OPP. OFFICE OF WARD NO. 6, SAHJANAND ROAD, MUJAMHUDA DISTRICT-VADODARA GUJARAT 3. MAHESH SUPER MARKET SHOP NO. 2 TO 5, SANTKRUPA APARTMENTS OPP. R.C. PATEL ESTATE, MUJAMHUDA VADODARA GUJARAT 4. SUMO FOODS PVT. LTD. NUMBER 7-4-40, GAGAN PAHAD, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Priank Adhyaru, Advocate For the Respondent : NEMO Dated : 09 Oct 2018 ORDER Despite service of notice on the Respondents by dasti process, nobody has put in appearance on their behalf. Affidavit of service on the Respondents has also been filed the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
As per the statement made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, travel expenses, as directed by the order dated 08.08.2018, have been paid to the Respondents No. 1 & 2/Complainants.
Under the circumstances, service on the Respondents is treated as sufficient.
By the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., the Petitioner herein, on the ground that when the case was called out, none remained present on their behalf.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Sufficient reasons have been given as to why the Petitioner's Counsel could not appear before the State Commission on the date fixed.
We, therefore, allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission; and restore Appeal No. 1162 of 2013 on the board of the State Commission.
We request the State Commission to decide the Appeal expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the case and shall appear on the date so fixed by the State Commission.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER