State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Netrapal Singh vs Angel Broking (Group Concern) on 13 May, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 13.5.2013 First Appeal 29/2013 (Arising out of the order dated 7.11.2012 passed by the District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi in complaint case No. 580/2012) Netrapal Singh r/o Village Kurdi Baghpat, Chhaprauli, Distt. Baghpat, UP .........Appellant VS M/s Angel Broking (Group concern) Member of BSE, NSE, NSDEX, MCD, CDSL, Opp. P.S. Moti Nagar, New Delhi-15 2nd Add: Corporate & Regd. Office: G-1, Akruit Trade Centre, Road No.7, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai. ....Respondent CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President Salma Noor, Member
V.K.Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
JUSTICE BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, PRESIDENT
1. In a complaint case bearing No.580/2012 filed by the Complainant appellant Netrapal Singh against the OP respondent M/s Angel Broking (Group concern) before District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi, the Complainant absented himself on 4.9.2012, 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 Shri Saurabh Jain, Counsel for the Appellant at the admission stage itself in this appeal, as there is no need to hear the respondent.
4. The version of the complainant appellant for his non appearance before the District Forum is that he was represented by his Counsel in this complainant and since his Counsel Shri Anil Dutt Sharma was engaged in another matter before another court, he could not reach the Forum when the case was called upon and it was dismissed in complainants default.
There is no plausible reason not to believe or not to rely and act upon this version of the appellant. Besides it has been the consistent policy of the courts, to adopt an attitude of lenience, in dealing with such restoration matters. The purpose of law is fulfilled only when the case is decided on merits. We therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders in question, and remand the case back to District Forum-III, Janak Puri, 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 through his Counsel present here is directed to appear before the District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi on 5.8.2013.
5. A copy of this order be sent to District Forum-III, Janak Puri, New Delhi to keep it on complaint file and for compliance.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member (V.K.Gupta) Member (Judicial) Arya