BOBCARD LTD Vs. SURJIT SINGH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, BOBCARD Ltd., who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint. An appeal filed before the State Commission was dismissed. On a revision petition filed before us by the petitioner/complainant, after hearing the parties following order was passed on 7.8.2002.

(2.) On an application filed by the respondent for clarification following order was passed by this Commission on 23.10.2002.

(3.) We heard him. The only grievance is that the clarificatory order was passed without issuing notice/or hearing him. We heard him on this point. After perusal of material on record and hearing the complainant, we see no ground to interfere/modify the clarificatory order passed on 23.10.2002. It was never the intention of this Commission to sustain reliefs other than cost, especially when the respondent expressed regrets, as desired by the complainant. In our view the order on the point was clear. Since a clarification was sought, we had no hesitation in putting the matter straight and spelling out more clearly what was implied in the order. We see no merit in this miscellaneous petition, which is dismissed. Misc. Petition dismised.