INDRA SOOD Vs. ANBROS MOTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is complainants appeal filed against the impugned order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) refusing to restore the complaint case, which was dismissed in default on 16.4.2004.

(2.) A perusal of Zimini order shows that the complaint case was taken up for hearing on 16.4.2004, which was fixed by an earlier Zimini order dated 23.3.2004. For the complainants Mr. Gurinderjeet Singh, Advocate had put in appearance while the OPs of the complaint case were represented by the Counsel. Even Mr. Gurinderjeet Singh, Advocate had appeared as a proxy Counsel for the Counsel who had been engaged by the complainant and the complaint case was, on the request of the proxy Counsel, adjourned to 16.4.2004. The District Forum directed the complaint case to come up on 16.4.2004 for producing documents regarding advance booking of car by the complainant and consideration. The evidence had been taken on record and the case was fixed specifically for placing on record the aforesaid document. However, on 16.4.2004, the complainant did not put in appearance. The complaint was taken up in the absence of Counsel for OPs. The District Forum passed the following order:

(3.) THE sole ground, which was taken in the affidavit of Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate in Paragraph No. 2 of the affidavit, which was filed in support of the application seeking restoration of the complaint case was that he wrongly noted the date of hearing of the complaint case as 26.4.2004 instead of 16.4.2004. This mistake was clearly deposed to and relied on as a ground sufficient for restoration of the case. In Paragraph No. 3 of the affidavit of Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate, it was deposed as under: