State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, Iph Division, ... vs Chinta Devi & Ors. on 2 April, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Revision Petition No: 03/2014.
Date of Presentation: 08.01.2014.
Date of Decision: 02.04.2014.
..............................................................................
1. Executive Engineer, IPH Division, Mandi, H.P.
2. Principal Secretary, IPH,
To the Govt. of H.P., Shimla.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Chinta Devi Wd/o Shri Balwant
2. Vishav Raj S/o Shri Balwant
3. Jai Mala D/o Shri Balwant
4. Smt. Fagni Devi W/o late Shri Dhani Ram,
All Resident of Village Kholanal, P.O. Kholanal,
Sub Tehsil Balichowki, District Mandi, H.P.
... Respondents.
........................................................................................
...........
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Verma, A.D.A.
For the Respondents: None.
......................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Notices sent to the respondents have not been received back. Notices were sent by registered post on 11.02.2014. More than thirty days have lapsed since the dispatch of notices. So, the presumption is that the registered cover containing notices stand delivered to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Executive Engineer, IPH Division & Anr. vs. Chinta Devi & Ors. respondents. They are not present. Hence proceeded ex- parte.
M.A. No.35/2014.
2. Limitation for filing revision petition is ninety days, and the present revision petition has been filed within the aforesaid period. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is superfluous. It is filed.
Revision Petition No: 03/2014.
3. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby the defence of the revision petitioners, who are impleaded as opposite parties No.1 & 3, in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them, by the respondents, has been struck of. Though the defence was stuck of after affording many opportunities, including one last opportunity, on payment of costs of `500/-, yet in the interest of justice, we grant one more opportunity to the revision petitioners to file their reply within fifteen days, from today, subject to payment of costs of `1,000/-. In case the reply is not filed within fifteen days, the revision petitioners shall loose the right to defend themselves in the complaint. Disposed of.
2 Executive Engineer, IPH Division & Anr. vs. Chinta Devi & Ors.
4. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member April 02, 2014.
N Mehta) 3