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

Harshit Kumar Goel vs Rural Electrification Corporation Of ... on 5 May, 2014

  
 
 
 
 
 

 
 





 

 



 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION :DELHI 

 

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

 

  

 


 Date
of Decision: 5.5.2014 

 

  

   

 First
Appeal  314/2014 

 

  

 

  

 
   
   
   

  
  
   
   

Harshit Kumar Goel, 
   

C-90, Sector-9, 
   

Noida- 201 301 
   

Gautam Budh Nagar 
   

Uttar Pradesh 
   

  
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

.........APPELLANT 
  
 


 VS 

 
   
   
   

1. 
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

2. 
  
   
   

Rural Electrification Corporation
  of India, 
   

Core-4, Scope Complex, 
   

7, Lodhi Road, 
   

New Delhi-110 003 
   

  
   

National Highway Authority of
  India, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, 
   

Dwarka, New Delhi- 110 075 
   

  
  
   
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

  
   

 ....RESPONDENT  
   

  
  
 


 

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-441/2013 and titled as Harshit Kumar Goel vs. Rural electrification & ors. filed before District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi, the Complainant absented himself from the proceedings on 28.2.2014 i.e. 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. Hament Gupta, Counsel for the appellant in this appeal at the admission stage itself as there was no need to hear the respondent.

4. The version of the complainant/appellant for his non appearance on 28.2.2014 before the District Forum was that the Counsel who representing the case before the Distt. Forum was held up in Patiala House and Tis Hazari Courts in some other matter. There is no plausible reason not to rely and act upon the version of the appellant. It has never been the policy of law to stifle a contest. Wherever possible, a lenient view in this regard has been recommended by the superior courts so as to enable the parties to present their cases. Matters should be decided on merits. We, therefore, allow the appeal setting aside the dismissal orders in question and remand the case back to District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi with the directions to restore the complaint to its original number and to proceed in the case according to law. The Appellant Complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi on 28.7.2014.

5. A copy of this order be sent to District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi to keep it on complaint file and for compliance.

 

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