National consumer disputes redressal commission

REVISION PETITION NO. 274 OF 2012

U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) Having its Head Office, A-1/4, Lakhanpur, Post Box No.105, Kanpur , U.P. Through its Project Officer, Tronica City Administrative Office, Sector B-3, Tronica City, Ghaziabad (U.P.)

                       …        Petitioner/OP

                                      Versus

Smt. Shyama Rani W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar, R/o 2205/4, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi

                                                    …    Respondent/Complainant

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Raina, Advocate

For the Respondent : Smt.Shyama Rani, In person

PRONOUNCED ON  14^th January,  2013

O R D E R

 PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2341 of 2008  – Smt. Shyama Rani Vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Audhyogik Vikas Nigam Ltd. by which order of District Forum was set aside and complaint was allowed and petitioner/OP was directed to allot industrial plot of 500 sq. mt. or smaller size to the complainant/OP.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that complainant applied for an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. mt. and deposited a sum of Rs.1,22,500/- as the price of the industrial plot with petitioner/opposite party.  Opposite party allotted plot of 600 sq. mt. instead of 500 sq. mt. and asked complainant to make payment of plot at escalated rate i.e. at the rate of Rs.1150/- per sq. mt. instead of Rs.935/- per sq. mt.  Complainant requested opposite party vide letter dated 17.1.2001 that due to financial problem plot of smaller size measuring 450 sq. mt.may be allotted otherwise plot be treated as surrendered.  Complainant again vide letter dated 19.2.2001 requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. otherwise cancel allotment and refund money.  In pursuance to the aforesaid letters, opposite party refunded money as allotment of smaller size of industrial plot was not possible.  Complainant again wrote a letter in October, 2006 and submitted that smaller size of plot was available, but intentionally complainant’s plot has been cancelled, hence, again requested to allot either original plot of 600 sq. mt. or plot of 400 to 450 sq. mts. at current rate which application was rejected vide letter dated 22.11.2006 by opposite party, hence, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  Opposite party filed written statement and submitted that complainant is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that as per request of the complainant allotment has been withdrawn and money has been refunded, hence, complaint may be dismissed.  Learned District Forum vide its order dated 12.11.2008 dismissed complaint against which this revision petition has been filed.

3.       Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent in person and perused record.

4.       It is an admitted case that complainant applied for an industrial plot measuring 500 sq. mt and deposited money and opposite party allotted industrial plot measuring 600 sq. mt. This fact is not disputed that complainant vide letter dated 17.1.2001 requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. instead of 600 sq. mt. and in the alternate requested for treating this allotment as surrendered.  Again vide letter dated 19.1.2001 complainant requested for allotment of plot measuring 450 sq. mt. instead of 600 sq. mt and further requested that either industrial plot of 450 sq. mt. be allotted or allotment of 600 sq. mt. plot be cancelled and money may be refunded and in pursuance to this letter money has been refunded to complainant by opposite party on 5.3.2001.

5.       Later on vide letter of October, 2006, complainant again requested for the allotment of industrial plot of 600 sq. mt. or other plot of 400 to 450 sq. mt. at current rate which was rejected by opposite party. 

6.       Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as complainant had surrendered the plot and money was refunded to him complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer.  He further argued that as the plot was industrial, complainant does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act and further submitted that complaint is time barred as money was refunded in 2001 whereas complaint has been filed in 2007 and in such circumstance, learned State Commission has committed error in allowing appeal and complaint, hence, revision petition may be accepted and order of State Commission may be set aside.  On the other hand, learned respondent submitted that petitioner has cheated with the respondent and has not allotted industrial plot of similar size as requested though plots of smaller size were available and in such circumstance order passed by learned State Commission is not in accordance with law , hence, revision petition may be dismissed.

7.       It is admitted case that complainant vide its two letters referred to above surrendered industrial plot of 600 sq. mt and requested for refund of money and as petitioner had already withdrawn allotment and refunded money in 2001, complainant does not fall within the purview of C.P. Act.  As refund was made in 2001 and complaint has been filed in 2007 on the ground of cheating, etc., complaint is clearly time barred and no application under section 24A has been filed along with the complaint and in such circumstances, as complaint being time barred could not have been entertained by the District Forum and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing time barred complaint.

8.       Complainant/respondent was allotted industrial plot.  Complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that complainant prayed for allotment of industrial plot for earning her livelihood by means of self-employment and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer under Section 2 (d) of the C.P. Act and on this count also complaint was liable to be dismissed and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint.

9.       Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 24.5.2011 passed by learned State Commission is set aside and order of District Forum is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                         ..……………Sd/-……………

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

..……………Sd/-………………

 MEMBER

(From the order dated 07.12.2011 in First Appeal Nos.1437 & 1438 of 2011 of the

Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore)

 
Smt. Ganga Patil W/o Mallikarjun Patil, R/o Hebbal, Tq. Chittapur, District Gulbarga

2.    The Assistant Executive (Electrical) O & M Sub-Division, GESCOM, Post Kalgi, Tq. Chittapur, District Gulbarga

 
REVISION PETITION NO.1349 OF 2012

(From the order dated 07.12.2011 in First Appeal Nos.1437 & 1438 of 2011 of the

Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore)

Shri Prabhakar Patil S/o Bashanth Rao Patil R/o Bebbal, Tq. Chittapur, District Gulbarga

…  Petitioner
Versus
1.    The Executive Engineer (Electrical) O & M Division-II, GESCOM, Jewargi Under Bridge Road, District Gulbarga

2.    The Assistant Executive (Electrical) O & M Sub-Division, GESCOM, Post Kalgi, Tq. Chittapur, District Gulbarga

For the Petitioner                  :   Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate

Since both these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against a common order passed on 7^th December, 2011 by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (‘State Commission’ for short) by which the State Commission had dismissed the two appeals filed by the two petitioners, these petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2.       The factual matrix of the two cases which have similar facts are like this. Petitioner in R.P. No.1348/2012, Ganga Patil, had a pair of bullocks being used by him as an agriculturist. Through his servant he sent the bullocks for grazing. On 3.10.2004, while passing through the village path at about 11.00 a.m., the bullocks got electrocuted due to the fall of live electric wire and died on the spot. Immediately a complaint was lodged with the police which conducted Mahazar and post-mortem. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum Gulbarga. In the other revision petition No.1349/2012 also similar incident took place with the bullocks of the other petitioner who were being taken for grazing by the servant of the petitioner. He too sustained the loss on account of the electrocution incident which caused the death of his bullocks. He lodged another similar complaint with the District Forum.

3.       On notice, the OPs filed their written statement in which it was contended that the incident had occurred due to the carelessness and negligence of the complainants. It was further contended that the complainants are not consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and as such there was no relationship between the complainants and the respondents. Since the claim made by the complainants was exorbitant, the respondents, in all fairness, settled the compensation for Rs.5,000/- in complaint filed by petitioner in R.P. No.1348/2012 and for Rs.2,000/- in the other revision petition. Both the petitioners/complainants received the said compensation without any protest. It was claimed that the compensation was towards full and final settlement. Accordingly, the respondents/OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaints. The District Forum vide its two separate orders in the two complaints passed on 31.3.2011 accepted the two complaints. In the complaint filed by the first petitioner, Ganga Patil, the opposite parties/respondents were jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint towards loss on account of death of the bullocks and they were also held liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.2,000/- In the other complaint, the District Forum ordered the opposite parties/respondents to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.28,000/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization towards the loss on account of death of the bullocks besides awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- by way of cost of the proceedings. Aggrieved by these orders passed by the District Forum, the petitioner/complainants filed appeals before the State Commission for enhancement of the compensation requesting for compensation of more than Rs.19 Lakhs. The State Commission vide its common impugned order, dismissed the two appeals. In these circumstances, the two petitioners have filed the present revision petitions reiterating their request for enhancement of the compensation.

4.       We have heard Ms. Kiran Suri, Advocate for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel contended that the compensation awarded by the fora below was too inadequate and was nowhere near the loss and the mental agony suffered by the petitioners. In this context, she has drawn our attention to the calculations of loss of income to the petitioners on account of non-availability of the bullocks which comes to  several lakhs. In support of the amounts of  compensation claimed by the petitioners, the counsel also drew our attention to the rates of different agricultural produce obtained by the petitioners from the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Gulbarga. She further submitted that it was not correct to say that the fora below do not have power to award adequate compensation. She further submitted that in the present cases, the District Forum and the State Commission have failed to assess due compensation and what they have awarded is not correct and hence she strongly pleaded for enhancement in the amounts of compensation in the two petitions. In support of her contentions, she relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243 and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 506.

5.       We have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Both the fora below have held the respondents guilty of deficiency in service. The only question to be considered is in respect of quantum of compensation for the deficiency in service. The State Commission while dismissing the appeals for enhancement of the compensation amounts has made the following observation: -

“We have gone through the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. There is no proof that the said bullocks cost so much as on that day. Complainants during the course of enquiry by police stated that each bullock was worth of Rs.25,000/-. Under such circumstances, the D.F. has thoroughly considered each and every aspect of the matter and rightly come to the conclusion that the complainants are entitled for compensation and awarded compensation of Rs.55,000/- as far as a pair of bullock is concerned and Rs.28,000/- compensation as far as one bullock is concerned. It has also awarded separate compensation as well as litigation cost and the interest. Bearing in mind the relief granted the D.F. we are of the considered opinion that the said award is proper in consonance with the monetary loss suffered by the complainant. As already observed by us complainants have failed to make out substantial grounds and reasons so as to enhance the said compensation. Appeals appear to be devoid of merit.

6.       We agree with the view taken by the State Commission while upholding the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum. The maximum amount which the claimants could have prayed for would normally not exceed the price of the bullocks. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the District Forum has gone by the police report indicating the worth of the bullocks at Rs.25,000/- each and pegged the value of each bullock at Rs.30,000/- and after deducting the amount of Rs.5,000/- already paid by the OP, awarded Rs.55,000/- in the case of Ganga Patil’s complaint where a pair of bullocks had died due to electrocution and Rs.28,000/- (after adjusting Rs.2,000/-) in the case of Prabhakar Patil’s  complaint where one bullock was involved. Besides this, the cost of the proceedings and compensation had also been awarded. We consider this as a fair and just compensation in the given circumstances. It is not understood as to why the petitioners, who now claim to have suffered losses worth lakhs of rupees on account of the absence of these bullocks, did not replace them by purchasing new bullocks which would have cost them only as much as the price of bullocks rather than allegedly continuing to suffer financial losses over the period of time.  We, therefore, do not find any merit in the claims put forth by the petitioners in these revision petitions and they are liable for dismissal. During the course of her submission, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners had not accepted the cheques of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively sent by the respondents by way of compensation to settle the claims. However, the District Forum while partly accepting the complaints of the two petitioners had deducted these amounts from the amounts of award in each of the two complaints. In view of this, learned counsel submitted that the two amounts  - Rs.5,000/- in the case of R.P. No.1348 of 2012 and Rs.2,000/- in the case of R.P. No.1349 of 2012 will have to be added to the amounts awarded by the District Forum even if the impugned orders of the Fora below are to be confirmed. We accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners subject to its verification by the District Forum.

7.       In view of the above, we confirm the impugned order and dispose of two revision petitions in terms of the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                   ………………Sd/-…………..

                  MEMBER

Raj/

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO.2544OF 2011

Mr. Deepak Jayendra Mehata R/At no.5 B-3 Narendra Complex SP Road Dhar Khadi Cross Vaishali Nagar Dahisar (E) Mumbai Maharashtra.              

           Versus

1. The Chairman HDFC Bank Ltd Retail Assets Division 3^rd Floor Trade Star Building Opp. J B Nagar Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai Maharastra.

 2. The Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. Retail Assets Division 3^rd Floor Trade Star Building Opp. J B Nagar Andheri Kurla Raod Andheri (E) Maharashtra.

 3. The Manager/Director M/s OM Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. Jyoti Plaza, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067, Maharashtra.

                                            ....... RESPONDENTS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI,

PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE  MR.SURESH CHANDRA,  MEMBER

For the Petitioner         :    Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Advocate

For the Respondents  :    Mr.Rishab Raj Jain, Adv. for R1& R2

PRONOUNCED ON: 14^th January, 2013

                                                ORDER

          This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’, for short) by which the State Commission allowed the appeal of the petitioner only against OP no.3/respondent no.3 and remitted the matter back to the District Forum as against OP no.3 only and dropped the complaint against OPs no.1 and 2/respondent nos.1 and 2.  The impugned order reads as under:-

“(i)       Appeal is allowed only against Respondent/original Opponent No.3.

(ii)        Impugned order as against Respondent/Original Opponent Nos.1 &2 stands confirmed.

(iii)       The Consumer Complaint No.188/2008 is remitted back to the Forum as against Respondent/original Opponent no.3 only, in the light of the observations made in the body of the order.

(iv)       Both parties, i.e. Appellant/original Complainant and Respondent/original Opponent No.3 shall appear before the Forum on 03.06.2011.

(v)        The Forum shall give opportunity, if so desires by the Appellant/original Complainant to correct the description of original Opponent No.3.  If such application is made, that should be decided on merit after hearing Opponent no.3.

(vi)       The Forum shall also give proper opportunity to the parties before it, i.e. Complainant and Opponent No.3 to lead their respective evidence as per Provisions of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter them, settle the dispute according to law.

(vii)      In the given circumstances, both the parties in appeal shall bear their own costs.

(viii)     Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

2.      Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner, who was original complainant before the District Forum, that he had purchased a Tata Indigo car in the month of August, 2005 from M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kandivali (W), Mumbai, respondent no.3 herein.   While an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- against the total purchase price of the car is alleged to have been paid by the complainant-petitioner to the agent of respondent no.3, he also applied for car loan of Rs.4,51,000/-  from the HDFC Bank Ltd. who are respondents no.1 and 2 in this petition and were OPs in the same order before the District Forum.  The loan amount sanctioned by the respondent bank to purchase the said car  is alleged to have been directly released by the respondent bank to respondent no.3.  It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.3 failed to deliver the possession of the vehicle purchased.  It is also alleged by the petitioner that instead of making delivery of the said car to him, the respondent no.3 had given delivery thereof to another person called ‘Deepak Devendra Mehta’.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.3/OP no.3, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in which the Chairman of the HDFC Bank was shown as OP no.1 and the Branch Manager of the Bank was made as OP no.2  in addition to the Manager/Director of M/s Om Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd. being included as OP No.3.  On notice, OPs appeared before the District Forum.  The financial help provided by the HDFC Bank for purchase of the car through a car loan was admitted by the HDFC Bank but the respondent no.3 submitted that they had no dealing with the petitioner and they had dealing with one Mr.Deepak Devendra Mehta to whom the car had been delivered.  Vide its impugned order dated 31.07.2010, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the facts of this case showed that this is not a complaint which can be tried by a Consumer Forum in a summary trial under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such held that the complaint is not maintainable before it and that the complainant should have preferred a Forum of conventional Court to thrash out the complicated issues by appropriate legal proceedings.  Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

4.      We have heard Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rishab Raj Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1 and 2 and Mrs.Bindu Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.3.

5.      It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Commission has committed grave mistake in observing in its impugned order that the petitioner did not have any grievance against the respondent bank and hence reached the conclusion that the respondent no.1 and 2 were impleaded unnecessarily as the opponents.  She submitted that the District Forum without reaching a final conclusion in respect of the complaint in question had simply observed that in view of the complicated nature of issue involved the same was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and hence dismissed the complaint by its order by which the petitioner was directed to approach a Civil Court competent to take cognizance of the dispute.  It is the contention of the learned counsel that since the State Commission has not looked into the merits of the case, it would be wrong on its part to dismiss the complaint against therespondents no.1 and 2/OPs no.1 and 2.  In any case, it was not correct on the part of the State Commission to hold that since the consumer dispute was in respect of non- delivery of the vehicle by the dealer , i.e., the respondent no.3 to the petitioner/complainant, the presence of the bank/financial institution could be dispensed with.  She submitted that once the evidence is led by the concerned parties, the presence of the respondent bank who was included as opposite party would be absolutely essential.  She, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the State Commission be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for deciding it on merits by retaining the respondents no.1 and 2 as parties to the case.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has also submitted that the matter be remanded to the State Commission and not to the District Forum.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent bank has reiterated that the grievance of the complainant is mainly against the persons, namely,  Mr. Vilas P. Sawant, Mr. Sandeep Kandalkar and Mr. Ajay Sawant who, according to the complainant had induced him to deal with them and in that process he was cheated by them. He submitted that the role of the bank was limited to grant of a car loan and recovery thereof from the petitioner and as such the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint against the respondent bank  is correct and needs to be confirmed.

8.      We have carefully considered the rival contentions raised before us. The limited issue which has arisen for our consideration in this case is as to whether the impugned order of the State Commission dropping the names of respondents no.1 and 2 thereby dismissing the complaint against these two respondents while remitting the matter for a fresh trial to the District Forum is correct in the eye of law.  It is not in dispute that the petitioner had taken a car loan from the respondent bank.  It is also not in dispute that the respondent bank was getting the payment of EMIs for some time in repayment of the said loan.  According to the petitioner, the respondent bank released the amount of car loan directly to the dealer.  We do not see any denial to this aspect, which in any case is presumed to be true as per the general practice in which the car loan usually is released to the dealer of the car (which in this case would be respondent no.3). This being the situation, the respondent bank needs to specifically point out and produce documentary evidence in support thereof as to how and to whom the cheque on account of the car loan was released by the respondent bank.  Such documents would invariably indicate the correct name of the person on whose behalf the amount was being released by the respondent bank to the dealer.  This aspect has not been dealt with by the State Commission and there is no observation in this regard.  In the circumstances, when the State Commission thought it appropriate to remand the matter to the District Forum for  a fresh trial after considering the evidence to be adduced by the respondent no.3 and the petitioner in support of their contentions and take a decision on merits after hearing the parties, it is not understood as to how the presence of the respondent bank could be dispensed with by dismissing the complaint against the bank. In that view of the matter and to this extent, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustained in the eye of law being not based on any acceptable evidence before it. 

9.      It is noted from the revision petition that the District Forum had dismissed the complaint as not being maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act simply because in its opinion it felt that the dispute involved complicated questions of law and facts.  It is further seen from paras 3 (II), (III) and (IV) of the revision petition that the respondent bank failed to produce certain documents as per the direction given by the District Forum and as such the District Forum did not reach any conclusion based on evidence or merits of the case but only on its impression that because of the nature of the dispute and complications involved, the complaint was not maintainable.  In the circumstances, when the petitioner has  alleged non- delivery of the vehicle by the respondent no.3 to him for which the loan amount had been released directly by the respondent bank to the respondent no.3-dealer, it is necessary that the respondent bank clarifies this position in respect of the person on whose behalf  the car loan cheque was released to the dealer/respondent no.3 before he could be held liable for deficiency in service in respect of non delivery of the car to the petitioner.  In other words, the presence of the respondent bank is absolutely essential for reaching any conclusion or taking a final view on the complaint in question. The observations of the State Commission to the effect that the main grievance of the petitioner being against the respondent no.3, the respondent bank has no role to play is incorrect and not based on proper appreciation of the submissions made in the complaint and the written statement of the parties.

10.    In view of the above, we do not find any fault with the order of the State Commission to remand the matter back to the District Forum for recording evidence and hearing the parties afresh but we do not agree with the impugned order regarding the dismissal of the complaint against the respondents no.1 and 2 thereby exempting them from appearing and leading the evidence before the District Forum.  We, therefore, accept the revision petition partly and set aside the impugned order to the extent that it dismisses the complaint against the respondent no.1 and 2.  Rest of the impugned order is upheld. Consequently, the District Forum is directed to give proper opportunity to the petitioner and all the respondents who were OPs before the District Forum to lead their respective evidence and thereafter settle the dispute after hearing the parties in accordance with the provisions of law.  We make it clear that the petitioner and the respondents would be at liberty to lead their evidence with reference to the allegations of deficiency in service made in the original complaint and the District Forum shall take a decision on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by the State Commission in its impugned order.

11.    The revision petition thus stands partly allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions with the parties bearing their own costs.

……………Sd/-….……………

                                                       (K. S. CHAUDHARI, J.)

                                                      PRESIDING MEMBER

  …………Sd/-…….……………

 

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI

(From the order dated 23.10.2008 in Appeal No. 1472/2008

of Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through its Regional Manager, 87 – Mahatma Gandhi Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 (Maharashtra)

...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.Chandra Kumar Chatrath R/o 130 Dusheera Maidan Ujjain (MP)

2. Raksha T.P.A. PVT. LTD. 15/5, Escort Corporate Centre, Faridabad, Haryana

...........Respondent(s)

 

BEFORE

 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Babu Aggarwal, Advocate

For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate

For the Resp. No.2 : Ms. Sugandha Taneja, Advocate

Exparte

PRONOUNCED ON :  14^th JAN. 2013