National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. R.D. Singh vs Batu Mal & Anr. on 28 April, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 24/02/2016 in Complaint No. 202/2015 of the State Commission Chandigarh) 1. DR. R.D. SINGH R/O. H NO. 43, BAB KARAM SINGH NAGAR, NEAR CITY RESORT, MALWAL ROAD, FEROZPUR CITY ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. BATU MAL & ANR. S/O. SH. LAL MASIH, R/O. HOUSE NO. , HARMAN NAGAR, WARD NO. , ICCHE WALA ROAD, FEROZEPUR CITY, 2. PRINCE BLESSON R/O. HOUSE NO. 41, HARMAN NAGAR, WARD NO. 10, ICCHE WALA ROAD, FEROZPUR CITY ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ANUP K THAKUR,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Ex parte Dated : 28 Apr 2017 ORDER Appellant being aggrieved of the order of the State Commission dated 24.2.2016 has preferred this revision petition. The order reads as under: -
"Sh. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate has filed power of attorney on behalf OP No.2.
As per the report of the Registry notice sent to the OP No.1 on 18.9.2015 has been received back with the report "left without address." Counsel for the complainant is directed to file correct address of OP No.1 with the Registry within a period of two weeks and thereafter notice be issued to the OP No.1 or in the alternative he should file an affidavit that he has no knowledge of any other address of OP No.1 in that eventuality then notice be sent to OP No.1 through publication in Daily Tribune Chandigarh on deposit of publication charges on 7.1.2016."
2. As no one appeared on behalf of the respondents, they were proceeded ex parte.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable because the appellant at the relevant time was out of India. Therefore there could be no occasion of refusal to take notice by the appellant. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to photocopies of his passport with the immigration entries.
4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant which is supported by the documentary evidence i.e. immigration entries in the passport, it cannot be said that the appellant refused to take notice. Thus, the order of the State Commission proceeding ex-parte against the appellant cannot be sustained.
5. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order proceeding ex-parte against the appellant/opposite party.
6. The State Commission is directed to ensure that the copy of the complaint is supplied to the appellant/opposite party and permit him to file written statement, if any, within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the complaint.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... ANUP K THAKUR MEMBER