State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Racpc, Sbi vs Ms. Pallavi Joshi Bakharu on 22 November, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:22.11.2013 First Appeal N.2013/1242(R.P. No.2013/42) (Arising out of Order dated 24.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.330/2012) RACPC, SBI . Revisionist /Opposite Party 11, Ground Floor, Block-A, through Mr. Raj Kumar Beri, DAO Building, advocate. Parliament Street, New Delhi. Versus Ms. Pallavi Joshi Bakharu . Respondent/Complainant R/o W-129, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President 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. In a complaint case bearing No.330/2012 filed by the complainant against the appellant/OP, before District Forum-II, 24.07.2013 was fixed for filing the evidence of both the parties. OP neither appeared nor filed his evidence. The Forum therefore ordered to proceed ex-parte against him.
2. That is what brings the appellant/OP in this appeal before this Commission.
3. We have heard Sh. Raj Kumari Beri, counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person, at the admission stage itself.
4. The version of the appellant/OP in respect of non-appearance on 24.07.2013 before District Forum is that his counsel jotted down a wrong date 27.07.2013 in place of correct one 24.07.2013, and that is how the default occurred.. There is no plausible reason not to rely and not to act upon this version of the appellant. It has never been the policy of law to stifle a contest and wherever possible, under the circumstances a lenient view in this regard has been recommended, so that the parties may have an opportunity to present their case before the Forum, so that the matter may be decided on merits. Reasons given for default by the appellant are supported by an affidavit. We are therefore inclined to allow the appeal so that appellant may have an opportunity to contest the case on merits. This order will be subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs which should be paid by the appellant/OP to the complainant within a month, failing which this order will become inoperative.
5. The appellant through his counsel is directed to appear before the District Forum-II on 20.12.2013 when he will also file his evidence, which the Forum will take on record and will then proceed to decide the case after hearing the parties.
6. A copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the appellant, and a copy of this order be sent to District Forum-II to place it on the record of the complaint case No.330/2012 and for information and compliance. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 22nd day of November 2013.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President Tri 08.11.2013 Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Beri, Counsel for the Appellant.
FA-2013/1242(RP No.2013/42) This revision filed by the revisionist be treated as an Appeal.
Alongwith the appeal the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay.
We have heard counsel for the appellant on application for condonation of delay, without sending notice to the respondent, for this reason that this appeal is filed by appellant/OP for setting aside the order to proceed ex-parte against him.
For the reasons given in the application which find support from the accompanying affidavit and that the harassment caused to the respondent due to delay in filing the appeal, may be compensated in terms of money, the application is allowed subject to payment of costs Rs.1000/-, which the appellant/OP will pay to the respondent/complainant on the date fixed before the Forum, failing which this order shall automatically stand vacated.
Also heard on admission. The appeal is disposed of vide separate order.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri