State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Rajeev Kuthiala. & Anr. vs U.G. Hotel And Resorts Ltd. & Ors. on 5 July, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 17/2016
Date of Presentation: 27.01.2016
Date of Decision: 05.07.2016
.....................................................................................
1. Shri Rajeev Kuthiala,
Son of Shri Ram Parkash,
Care of 10, New Market,
Middle Mall, Shimla, H.P.
2. Smt. Kusum Kuthiala,
Wife of Shri Rajeev Kuthiala,
Care of 10, New Market,
Middle Mall, Shimla, H.P.
... Appellants
Versus
1. U.G. Hotel and Resorts Limited,
M-10 (Market), Greater Kailash,
11, New Delhi-49,
Through its Manager.
2. Shillon Resorts,
Shillon Bagh,
Kufri Chail Raod, Post Office Mundaghat,
District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh,
Through its Manager.
3. RCI Private Limited,
Registered Office at 208,
Brigade Garden,
19 Church Street, Bangalore,
Through its Manager.
...Respondents
...........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President.
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant:
Mr. Dheeraj Bansal , Advocate.
For the Respondent:
Mr.Y. P.Sood , Advocate, vice
Mr. Sanjay Prasher, Advocate.
.......................................................................................
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Rajeev Kuthiala & Anr. Versus U.G. Hotel and Resorts Ltd & Ors.
(F.A. No.17/2016)
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) The present appeal is directed against order dated 02.11.2015, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellants' execution petition, as also the application for extension of time, for complying with the condition by them (appellants), have been dismissed.
2. Admitted facts are that the appellants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the Learned District Forum, Shimla, which was decided, vide order dated 17.05.2010. As per the final order passed by the Learned District Forum, respondents were directed to sell the holiday membership rights of the appellants, within three weeks, from the date of receipt of formal authorization letter from the appellants, for selling their rights. Appellants were directed to make the applications within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order.
3. Admittedly, the appellants did not make the application within 45 days, from the 2 Rajeev Kuthiala & Anr. Versus U.G. Hotel and Resorts Ltd & Ors.
(F.A. No.17/2016) date of receipt of copy of order by their counsel. They moved an application on 11.04.2011, which is available in the record of the main complaint, seeking extension of time, to submit letter of authorization for the sale of holiday membership, to the respondents. It was alleged that the copy of order had been misplaced by the clerk in the office and because of that reason, authorization letter could not be addressed to the respondents within the time limit, fixed by the Learned District Forum, in its order dated 17.05.2010. That application was allowed by the Learned District Forum, without issuing any notice to the respondents.
4. Thereafter, the execution petition was filed and notice of that application was given to the respondents to file objections. Objections of the respondents were dismissed and warrant of attachment was ordered to be issued, vide order dated 19.08.2014. Revision was filed against that order before this Commission, which we allowed, vide our order dated 22.06.2015 and directed that the order of extension of time, on the application of the respondents, having been 3 Rajeev Kuthiala & Anr. Versus U.G. Hotel and Resorts Ltd & Ors.
(F.A. No.17/2016) passed without notice to the respondents, the same was not a good order in the eyes of law. We set aside that order and directed that fresh order be passed on that application after affording an opportunity to the respondents to contest the application and thereafter execution petition be decided. The Learned District Forum has now dismissed the application for extension of time, vide impugned order and, therefore, the appellants are in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Though in the application for extension of time, it is written that the copy of the order was misplaced in the office of the appellants, as a matter of fact, the affidavit which has been submitted with the application is of the counsel for the appellants and it is in the affidavit of the counsel that it has been made clear that the copy of the order was received by the counsel and it got misplaced in his office, as the office was under renovation. In view of this fact, the entire approach adopted by the Learned District Forum, needs to be reviewed.
4Rajeev Kuthiala & Anr. Versus U.G. Hotel and Resorts Ltd & Ors.
(F.A. No.17/2016)
7. Learned District Forum has proceeded on the assumption that copy of order was lost in the office of the appellants. Learned District Forum has further observed that even if the copy of the order was lost, the appellants were being aware of the conditional order ought to have sent authorization letters within the time specified in the order. Now, when the copy of order had been lost in the office of the counsel and there is nothing on the record to show that the appellants were at any point of time, prior to making of application for extension of time, in the know of the fact that they were required to submit authorization letter to the respondents within 45 days, they cannot be made to suffer simply because of the misplacement of the copy of the order, in the office of their counsel. Hence, the application for extension of time is allowed and the order of the Learned District Forum dismissing the said application, is set aside.
8. The matter is remanded to the Learned District Forum with the direction to decide the execution petition and the objections, filed by the respondents, on merits. 5 Rajeev Kuthiala & Anr. Versus U.G. Hotel and Resorts Ltd & Ors.
(F.A. No.17/2016)
9. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, on 21.07.2016.
10. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member July 05, 2016.
dkm) 6