State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suman Godara & Anr. vs Bhawna Sharma on 21 September, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 160/2011. Date of Decision: 21.09.2012. 1. Mrs. Suman Godara, (Director), Himachal Air Hostess Training Institute, Solan, H. No. 2 C, Sector-14, HSIDC Apartments, Ward No.-20, Panchkula, Haryana. 2. Mr. Vijay Singh Godara, Sr. Manager (P&A), HSIDC Apartments, Ward No.-20, Panchkula, Haryana. Appellants Versus Miss Bhawna Sharma, D/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Sharma, R/o Hatkot, Kunihar, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. Respondent. Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellants: Mr. S. Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby a complaint filed against them by respondent Ms. Bhawna, has been allowed and they have been ordered to refund a sum of `1.00 lac charged from the respondent on account of fees, admission charges and other expenses on account of Air Hostess course, with interest @ 9% per annum and also to pay `10,000/- as damages and `2,000/- as costs. Order has been passed exparte.
2. Appellants alleged that they had never been served nor was ever any postal envelope/cover containing notice tendered to them by any postman.
3. Record of the learned District Forum shows that notices were sent to the appellants at the address of 13-14, Sector-6, Panchkula and as per report of the postman, they refused to accept the same. In the cause title of the complaint, one appellant, namely Suman Godara is shown to be resident of house No.21, Sector-7, Panchkula and the other resident of a village in Bhiwani District of Haryana. It is because of this contradiction in the addresses given on the envelopes and the cause title of the complaint that this Commission, vide order dated 02.12.2011, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, with the observation that the appellants could not be said to have been legally served.
4. As a result of the above stated position, appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is remanded to the learned District Forum, with the direction to afford an opportunity to the appellants to file reply to the complaint and also to lead evidence in support of the plea, which they may raise in the reply, and thereafter to dispose of the matter according to law.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, on 06.10.2012.
6. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member September 21, 2012.
*DC Dhiman* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?