Tribunals and Commissions

S.G. ESTATES AND PROPERTIES LIMITED vs NEERAJHA RANI DAS

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 9 September 1999 · Citation: 1999 3 CPJ 274

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C.Bhargava , D.D.Bahuguna J.
RESULT
Revision dismissed with observations
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 349 words
1.

THIS is a revision against the order dated 4.8.1999. We have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist at the admission stage. Learned Counsel for the revisionist states that the evidence could not be filed by the opposite party on account of the death of the ''pairavkar'' of the appellant. He died in a road accident.

2.

THERE is no evidence on record to show as to when ''pairavkar'' died. Even after pairavkar died, it was the duty of the opposite party to have either appeared in person or engaged another ''pairavkar'' for appearance before the District Forum concerned. Perusal of the order sheet goes to show that the complaint was filed in 1997 and the opposite parties were served notice by Registered Post which were sent on 13.1.1997. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application for time to file written statement. The opposite party had filed written statement. Thereafter the complainant also filed evidence but the opposite parties even after obtaining adjournment did not submit any evidence. As a matter of fact, the opposite party had moved an application on 1.10.1997 for time to file evidence, but even then no evidence was filed till ex parte orders were passed. This order was passed on 17.3.1999 and thereafter the case was put up for ex parte evidence.

As no evidence from the side of the opposite parties were filed, therefore, the learned District Forum considered the case of the complainant and passed an order for hearing ex- parte arguments.

3.

THUS we find that there is no justification to set aside the order dated 4.5.1999. At the most the opposite parties can appear and argue the case before the learned District Forum. For the reasons mentioned above the opposite parties, who are applicants in the revision, can be permitted to participate in the arguments. The learned District Forum shall permit opposite parties of the complaint to argue their case at the time of arguments. No other relief can be given to the opposite parties. Thus the revision is dismissed with the above observations. Revision dismissed with observations.