State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi Jal Board vs M/S. Project Manager, Oberoi ... on 11 January, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 11.01.2012 First Appeal No.2011/739 (Arising out of Order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum(Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.65/2011) Delhi Jal Board, .Appellant/Opposite Party Varunalaya, through Mr. Dushyant Prashar Jhandewalan, New Delh with Mr. R.K. Singh, Advocate Versus M/s. Project Manager Respondent/Complainant. Oberoi Apartments, 2, Alipur Road, Oberio Apartments, Delhi CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Ms. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The facts of the case are that the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum(Central) against the OP, Delhi Jal Board with the prayer that the appellant/OP be directed to revise the bills for the period commencing from December 2010 to 2011 on the ground, the amounts shown in the bills ere in excess of the schedule charges, and the OP be restrained from disconnecting water connection of the complainant.
2. The appellant initially put his appearance on 29.08.2011, but did not file the written version. The District Forum, therefore adjourned the case for 24.10.2011 for filing the written version. On 24.10.2011, on the request of the counsel for the OP, the District Forum gave an opportunity again to the OP fixing 30.11.2011 for filing written version, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable by the OP to the complainant.
3. On 30.11.2011, counsel for the OP neither filed the written version nor paid the costs to the complainant and prayed for adjournment, which the District Forum declined and struck off the defence of the OP.
4. That is what brings the appellant in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard Sh. Dushayant Prashar and Sh. R.K. Singh, Counsel for the appellant in this appeal at admission stage.
6. The contention of the counsel for the appellant/OP is that he informed his client on 24.10.2011 to file the written version, and the Department after due signatures supplied the written version only on 30.11.2011 during the post lunch session, and soon after he requested the District Forum to keep his written version on record, but the District Forum by that time, had already passed the impugned order, and refused to take it on record.
7. On our query from the counsel for the appellant that when the defence was struck off, before lunch session, what hindered him to file the written version alongwith an application before the District Forum after lunch, with the request to keep it on record, he replied that the Registry had refused to accept it. The submission of the appellant is egregiously false. If the Registry refused to entertain his application and the written version he could have approached the President with his grouse about it, soon after, or the next day.
8. It is undisputable that the appellant OP failed to file his written version even on 30.11.2011, which was the third time for filing it and the Forum had no legal option but to pass the impugned order. 29.08.2011 was the first date for filing the written version when 24.10.2011 was again fixed for filing the same, and on request of the counsel for appellant on 24.10.2011 the Forum adjourned it fixing 30.11.2011 for filing written version subject to payment of costs and the appellant did not comply with the order by filing the written version and paying the costs. It is therefore manifest that the appellant did not file the written version within the period prescribed under section 13(i) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, i.e. within the extended period which the Forum could at the most grant him for filing his written version.
9. The District Forum cannot therefore be faulted in striking off the defence of the appellant/OP. The order of th District Forum is therefore wholly justified.
10. Appeal dismissed.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 11th day of January 2012.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri