LAWS(NCD)-2004-1-355

AVI AUTOS Vs. JAGDEV SINGH

Decided On January 29, 2004
AVI AUTOS Appellant
V/S
JAGDEV SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a revision petition against the order dated 3.6.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) In Complaint No.37 dated 7.2.2000 titled Shri Jagdev Singh son of Shri Surjeet Singh V/s. M/s. Premier Automobiles Limited, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai and M/s. AVI Autos, SCO Nos.59-60, Sector 26, Chandigarh, the District Forum vide its order dated 2.5.2000 directed the petitioner (opposite party No.2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called the opposite party No.2) and M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. , Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Kurla, Mumbai (respondent No.2 before us) (opposite party No.1 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No.1) to refund an amount of security of Rs.15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to respondent No.1 (complainant before the District Forum) (hereinafter called the complainant) from the date of deposit till its realisation in full and to pay total costs and compensation of Rs.1,100/- to the complainant. The order was to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of its copy. Application under execution dated 18.12.2002 contained averments inter alia that the District Forum had sent the copy of the order to the opposite parties and the same must have been received by the opposite parties during the month of July, 2000. In the reply dated 24.4.2003 to the execution application, opposite party No.2 had not denied this version. By implication it was deemed to have been admitted that opposite party No.2 had received the copy of the order dated 2.5.2000 in July, 2000.

(3.) We find from the record that Shri Avtar Singh Dhillon, Authorized Agent of opposite party No.2 was specifically asked by the District Forum as to whether or not the copy of the order dated 2.5.2000 was received by opposite party No.2. He conceded its receipt. Even now before us this position has not been rebutted much less with any evidence on the file.