JAGDISH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. RAM CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although the Registry had issued notice to respondent No.2 but the record shows that the name of respondent No.2 has been deleted from the array of respondents. Respondent No.1 is already ex-parte. Therefore, notice need not be issued to respondent No.1.

(2.) The present revision petition is filed against the order of the State Commission dated 15.12.2015 in FA/49/2011 of the petitioner (hereinafter called as "the complainant.") He filed the appeal against the order dated 12.1.2011 of the District Forum in complaint No.484/08, the number which was given after restoration of the initial complaint filed by the complainant which was registered as complaint No.858/07. The complainant filed the complaint against three persons, namely, Mongia Communication, Om Ujala Communication and Marketing Head, Nokia Delhi claiming the following directions: -

(3.) All the opposite parties were duly served but they did not appear and contest the case and were proceeded ex-parte. The affidavit of evidence was filed by the complainant. After hearing the arguments, the District Forum issued following directions: -