State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Ran Singh. vs Sh. Shyam Singh. on 29 May, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
Revision Petition No.76/2014
Date of Presentation: 15.12.2014
Date of Decision: 29.05.2015
................................................................................
Ran Singh, son of Shri Hira Lal,
Resident of Village Samon, Post Office Langna,
Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
... Petitioner.
Versus
Shyam Singh, son of Shri Tota Ram,
Resident of Village Bhal, Post Office Jhamterd,
Tehsil Jogindernagar, District Mandi, H.P.
... Respondent.
.....................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.
................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Presiding Member(Oral) Heard and gone through the record.
2. Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.11.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby the petitioner, who is impleaded as opposite party, in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Ran Singh Versus Shyam Singh (R.P. No.76/2014) respondent, Shyam Singh, has been ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. It is stated in the revision petition that the complaint was listed on 17.11.2014, when the impugned order was passed and on that very day, Advocate Pal Verma appeared in the morning session for the petitioner, but at that relevant time, learned counsel for the respondent was not present and, therefore, the matter was passed over two times, but when the matter was called third time, the learned counsel for the petitioner was busy in District Court, attending another case, during evening session and, therefore, he could not appear before the learned District Forum. The aforesaid plea of the revision petitioner is duly supported by his affidavit.
4. Plea raised on behalf of the revision petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned counsel appearing for respondent. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. It is in the interest of justice that no person can be condemned unheard and reasonable opportunities are to be afforded to the effected party(s), to file Page 2 of 3 Ran Singh Versus Shyam Singh (R.P. No.76/2014) reply, adduce evidence, etc. just to arrive at best conclusion.
5. In view of the above stated position, revision petition is allowed and the impugned order set aside. Learned District Forum is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his plea(s), as raised in the reply.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, on the next date of hearing, which shall be ascertained by them, at their own level.
7. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Prem Chauhan) Presiding Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member May 29, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 3 of 3