RAJ CONSTRUCTION Vs. NAILA ASHFAQUE SAUDAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main controversy revolves round the fact whether OP Nos. 1 and 2 should be given an opportunity to file the written statement after the expiry of more than 489 days from their service. Counsel for the petitioner present. The order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows: -

(2.) THE order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the State Commission runs as follows: -

(3.) COUNSEL for the Opponents -1 and 2 appears. It is clear that Mr. Faiyaz Shaikh appeared on behalf of Opponents 1, 2 and 3. OP -1 firm was served through one Mr. Sadam. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Mr. Sadam is not the petitioner's employee and the service upon the petitioner does not stand effected. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter the petitioner appeared before the Consumer Forum as the summon was pasted on the firm. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner should be permitted to file W.S., though, he has filed the evidence by way of affidavit.