ANOOP AGGARWAL ALIAS ANOOP PADIA Vs. DALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 10.2.2005 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), the two -fold submissions made by the learned Counsel Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate are that the appellants were not duly served with the notice of the complaint case and in any case they did not receive the copy of the complaint No. 627 of 2004 as Shri Anoop Aggarwal @ Aoop Padia was lodged in Burail Jail in case F.I.R. No. 267/27.9.2004 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. and under Section 24 of Immigration Act.

(2.) IN the second place, it has been contended that the District Forum despite having knowledge of the lodging of Mr. Anoop Aggarwal in Burail Jail did not think it appropriate to provide a legal aid to him to contest the complaint case. Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate also submitted that the appellants had received the copies of two other complaint cases bearing Nos. 625 and 626 both of 2004 and contested the same through Counsel and those cases, as stated at Bar by the learned Counsel for the respondent, have been reserved for judgment though Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate claimed that his inquiries have revealed that both the complaint cases have been dismissed but at the same time, he stated that he has not received nor his client have received any formal communication of the judgment and order from the District Forum regarding the complaint being dismissed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate had put in appearance before the District Forum and intimated the fact of the evidence already led on the file by the complainant and there -upon the District Forum decided the complaint case by allowing the complaint partly and directed the appellants/OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 17,975 to the respondent/complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of payment till refund along with Rs. 500 as costs of litigation.