Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Anilendra Pandey vs M/S Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. on 3 March, 2014

  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 





 

 



 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION :DELHI 

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) 

 

  

 

  Date
of Decision: 3.3.2014 

 

  

 First
Appeal  771/2013 

 

  

 

  

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

Anilendra Pandey 
   

R/o 218, Rai
  House, 
   

Street No.3, Fazalpur, 
   

Mandawli, Delhi- 110 092 
   

  
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

.........APPELLANT 
  
 


 VS 

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

M/s Colgate Palmolive (India)
  Ltd., 
   

Colgate Research Centre, 
   

Main Street, Hiranandani
  Garden, 
   

Pawai, Mumbai  400 076 
   

  
   

M/s D.R. Agencies, 
   

2147/2, Chuna
  Mandi, 
   

Paharganj, Delhi-55 
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

....RESPONDENTS  
   

  
  
 


 

CORAM 

 

  

 

Salma Noor,
Member 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)  

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

   

SALMA NOOR, MEMBER  

1. In a complaint case bearing No.C-221/2012 Anilendra Pandey vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. & ors. filed before District Forum, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi the Complainant absented himself on 7.5.2013, the date fixed for hearing, and the Forum dismissed the complaint in complainants default.

 

2. That is what brings the Complainant/appellant in appeal before this Commission.

 

3. We have heard Sh. Jai Shankar Aggarwal, Counsel for the appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself as there is no need to hear the respondent.

4. The version of the complainant appellant for his non appearance on 7.5.2013 before the Forum is that the Counsel who was representing the case before the Forum was busy in High Court and that is how the default occurred. There is no plausible reason not to rely and not to act upon this version of the appellant. It has never been the policy of law to stifle a contest and wherever possible, under the circumstances a lenient view in this regard has been recommended, so that the parties may have an opportunity to present their case before the Forum, so that the matter may be decided on merit.

We therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders in question, and remand the case back to District Forum, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi with a direction to restore the complaint on its original number, and to further proceed in the case according to law. The Appellant Complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi on 15.4.2014.

5. A copy of this order be sent to District Forum, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi to keep it on complaint file and for compliance.

 

(Salma Noor) Member (N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial)   Arya