Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.359 of 2022
Date of institution : 16.05.2022
Date of decision : 19.05.2022
Gurpreet Singh Dhillon son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o Dhillon Patti,
Village Kaire, Tehsil and District Barnala, Punjab.
….Appellant/Complainant
Versus
M/s Punjab Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd., situated at Street No.3, Namdev
Road, near Malwa Flex, Bathinda, District Bathinda, through its
Managing Director/Prop./Authorized Signatory.
Office No.+917901910318.
E-mail ID:adeshsolar@gmail.com
….Respondent/Opposite Party
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the
District
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Commission, Barnala.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
Yes/No
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Jimmy Singla, Advocate for
Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bansal, Advocate.
First Appeal No.359 of 2022
2
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT
Appellant/complainant-Gurpreet Singh Dhillon has filed the
present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Act”) against the order dated
11.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Barnala (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby
the
complaint
filed
by
him
was
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution/evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”). The impugned order dated
11.04.2022 is reproduced as under:
“Today learned counsel for the complainant again requested for an
adjournment for filing rejoinder and evidence of complainant and
payment of costs. On the perusal of the file it came to our notice that
this Commission on 21.3.2022 had given the date to file rejoinder and
tender the evidence of complainant subject to costs of Rs. 500/- to be
deposited in Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission and
case was adjourned to 1.4.2022. On 1.4.2022 the learned proxy
counsel for the complainant again requested for an adjournment for
filing rejoinder and evidence of complainant and payment of costs.
Today the complainant neither paid the costs nor filed rejoinder or
tender any evidence. The complainant has not complied with the order
of this Commission. This Commission has already granted the
opportunities to the complainant for filing rejoinder and evidence and
complainant has taken ample opportunities for filing rejoinder and his
evidence but he has not filed rejoinder and produced any evidence.
Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution
evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. However, no order as to costs
or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of
costs. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.”
First Appeal No.359 of 2022
3
2.
It would be apposite to mention here that hereinafter the
parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District
Commission.
3.
Mr. Jimmy Singla, proxy counsel for Sh. Sandeep Kumar
Bansal, counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the District
Commission did not accept the request of the counsel before the
District Commission, as only one more opportunity was required to file
rejoinder and to tender evidence. The complainant had placed on
record certain documentary evidence to prove his case and his
request was accepted. Only one opportunity was required to file
rejoinder and tender further evidence. The appellant/complainant
would suffer an irreparable loss if the opportunity to file rejoinder and
lead evidence is not g
