SIKANDERLAL AND CO Vs. VAID PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the light of the Order passed in South Delhi University Teachers Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. Dr. Madhu Rathour (R.P. No. 481/93) decided on 18th March, 1994, holding that striking off of the defence of a party is not a procedure that is legally warranted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that a person figuring as an Opposition Party when he appears for defending the case has a right to put forward his oral arguments before the concerned Forum even if he has not filed his written objections in time, the Order impugned in the present case whereby the defence of the petitioners was struck off cannot be sustained. The impugned Order of the State Commission is accordingly set aside. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of this case we consider that it will be in the interests of justice to afford a fresh opportunity to the petitioners herein-the Opposite Parties before the State Commission-to file their written objections before the State Commission subject to the condition that they pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- by way of cost to the complainant within a period of one month from today. The written submissions, if any, shall be filed by them within the said period of one month along with proof of compliance with the condition regarding payment of costs as indicated above. The State Commission will then receive the written objections and dispose of the case on merits after according a full and fair opportunity to both sides to place all their contentions before it.