At, Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) MONIKA MALIK
For the Appellant: Hemant Sharma, Learned Counsel. For the Respondents: R1, Preetima Shrivastava, Learned Counsel.
Shantanu S. Kemkar, President:
1. This revision arises out of the orders dated 21.03.2016, 21.04.2016 and 31.02.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (for short the ‘Forum’) in C.C.No.65/2016.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid orders have wrongly been recorded as evident from the proceedings dated 21.03.2016 which were recorded twice. It has also been stated in revision petition that in the proceedings dated 21.04.2016, there is manipulation and interpolation. A prayer has been made to take suitable action against the President, Members and the staff of the Forum for tampering in the record.
3. The allegations have been examined on administrative side by calling the comments of the Presiding Officer, District Forum, Gwalior.
4. The then President of the Forum has submitted his explanation along with explanation of the Reader of the Forum.
5. The explanation submitted by the then Presiding Officer (President) has been examined on administrative side by the President of the Commission. We find that a plausible explanation has been submitted justifying the reasons for the mistake and also for making correction in the order sheet which also bears signatures of the President under the correction. Therefore, in our considered view no further action or step in regard to the allegations made by the petitioner is warranted.
6. So far as taking of the reply of the respondent on record, we find that copy of the said reply was served on the counsel for petitioner/complainant on 21.03.2016 itself as would be evident from the receipt given by counsel for petitioner on 21.03.2016. This fact supports the order sheet dated 21.03.2016. Thus, it cannot be said that the reply has been filed by the respondent beyond period of limitation or that the same has been taken on record by mentioning back date. The receipt as given by counsel for petitioner on the first page coupled with the fact of recording in the order sheet about its filing indicates that t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he reply has been filed on 21.03.2016. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that reply has been taken on record by mentioning back date cannot be accepted. 7. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed.<