Back
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No.71 of 2022
Date of Institution : 26.10.2022
Date of Decision : 13.12.2022
Bombay Coins & Stamps, 9/15, Morarji Velji Building, 1st Floor, Room
No.30, Dr. M.B. Velkar Street, Kalbadevi, Mumbai 400002, India,
through its proprietor Mr. Sanjay Ramniklal Gosalia.
……..Petitioner/Opposite Party
Versus
Jeevandeep Singh, aged 46 years, R/o #1775, Fateh Villas, Sector
32-A, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana-141010.
…..Respondent/Complainant
Revision Petition under Section 47 (1) (B)
of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against
the order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission,
Ludhiana
in
Consumer
Complaint No.531 of 2021.
Quorum:-
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
Present:-
For the petitioner
: Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate
For the respondent
: Sh. Jeevandeep Singh in person
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
JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-
The petitioner/opposite party i.e. Bombay Coins &
Stamps, through its proprietor Mr. Sanjay Ramniklal Gosalia has filed
the present Revision Petition under Section 47(1)(B) of the Consumer
2
Revision Petition No.71 of 2022
Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) for setting aside the impugned
order dated 11.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the
“District Commission”) in C.C. No.531 of 2021 for granting one
more opportunity to the petitioner to file the written statement
and evidence.
2.
It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the
parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District
Commission.
3.
Briefly, the facts as mentioned in the complaint are that
the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District
Commission for seeking directions to reimburse an amount of
Rs.56,842/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to him for
causing mental pain, agony, harassment and humiliation stating to be
a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ at the
instance of the OP.
4.
Summons were issued to the OP for appearance through
registered post on 09.12.2021 but none appeared on behalf of the OP
and ultimately vide order dated 11.05.2022 the OP was proceeded
exparte and the case was adjourned for 19.07.2022 for submission of
affidavit and documents in exparte evidence of the complainant and
also for arguments.
5.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.05.2022, the
present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP.
3
Revision Petition No.71 of 2022
6.
There was a delay of 78 days in filing of the revision
petition. M.A. No.1439 of 2022 has been filed for condonation of
delay of 78 days in filing of the revision petition supported by an
affidavit of Mr. Sanjay Ramniklal Gosalia, Proprietor of the OP Firm.
7.
For the reasons stated in the said M.A., the delay in filing
of the revision petition is condoned but subject to payment of cost
amount of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/complainant.
8.
Mr. Anirudh Gupta Advocate learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the summons issued to the petitioner/OP
never reached to his office and the petitioner was not having any
knowledge about the case pending against him. The complainant had
intentionally evaded the service of summons to the petitioner/OP and
the petitioner/OP never served for the reasons best known to the
complainant. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had
received the copy of notice alongwith certain
