BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

FIRST APPEAL NO_________________OF 2020

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Limited and another

VS
Navdeep Singh & others

INDEX
Sr. No. Particulars Date Page No.
1. Reply to the application 11.1.2021
for condonation of delay
2. Affidavit in Support 11.1.2021
3. Reply to the application 11.1.2021
for stay
4. Affidavit in Support 11.1.2021
5. Power of Attorney Already on record

DATE : 11.1.2021
PLACE : CHANDIGARH
MUKESH MEHRA
ADVOCATE
P-2510/2016
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO_________________OF 2020

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Limited and another

VS
Navdeep Singh & others

Reply to the Application filed by the

appellant for condonation of delay of

1223 days in filing the appeal on

behalf of the respondent No. 1

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OJECTIONS:

1. That the outset, it is submitted that the every aspect of the application that has

not specifically admitted by the respondent No.1 would deemed to have been

denied by the respondent No.1.

2. That the Hon’ble District Commission had allowed the complaint filed the

respondent No. 1 vide a detailed judgement dated 17.8.2018 after considering

all the facts and evidences available on record. The applicant/appellant in his

application as well as in his entire appeal has failed to categorically point out

any reasonable flaw in the judgement.

3. That the applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of

evidence from the District Commission record that he was not served by the

District commission. In absence of any evidence, such alarming and

inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case. As a matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of the said

proceedings and wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted to run

away from his liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied
 upon the service report of the District Commission as the same would be

detrimental to him.

4. That the purpose of filing the present appeal is to just delay the inevitable i.e.

to comply with the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the District Commission

whereby the applicant/appellant Ld. Commission had directed the

applicant/appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant

alongwith interest @9 % per annum and further to pay Rs. 15,000 & Rs 7,000

towards mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses

respectively. The present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

PARAWISE REPLY

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the application are wrong and denied. The

present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary

costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are a matter of record and

thus need no reply.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the application are wrong and denied. The

applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of evidence from

the District Commission record that he was not served by the District

commission. In absence of any evidence, such alarming and inordinate delay

cannot be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As a

matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of the said proceedings and

wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted to run away from his

liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied upon the service

report of the District Commission as the same would be detrimental to him.

 It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present

application and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

CHANDIGARH RESPONDENT
NO.1
DATE: 11.1.2020 THROUGH

MUKESH MEHRA
ADVOCATE
P-2510/2016
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO_________________OF 2020

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Limited and another

VS
Navdeep Singh & others

AFFIDAVIT OF NAVDEEP SINGH

RESIDENT OF NEAR KABIR PARK,
PO RS MILLS, GT ROAD,
AMRITSAR-143104

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as

under:

PRELIMINARY OJECTIONS:

1. That the outset, it is submitted that the every aspect of the application that has

not specifically admitted by the respondent No.1 would deemed to have been

denied by the respondent No.1.

2. That the Hon’ble District Commission had allowed the complaint filed the

respondent No. 1 vide a detailed judgement dated 17.8.2018 after considering

all the facts and evidences available on record. The applicant/appellant in his

application as well as in his entire appeal has failed to categorically point out

any reasonable flaw in the judgement.

3. That the applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of

evidence from the District Commission record that he was not served by the

District commission. As a matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of

the said proceedings and wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted

to run away from his liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not
 relied upon the service report of the District Commission as the same would

be detrimental to him.

4. That the purpose of filing the present appeal is to just delay the inevitable i.e.

to comply with the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the District Commission

whereby the applicant/appellant Ld. Commission had directed the

applicant/appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant

alongwith interest @9 % per annum and further to pay Rs. 15,000 & Rs 7,000

towards mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses

respectively. The present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

PARAWISE REPLY:

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the application are wrong and denied. The

present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary

costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are a matter of record and

thus need no reply.

3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the application are wrong and denied. The

applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of evidence from

the District Commission record that he was not served by the District

commission. As a matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of the said

proceedings and wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted to run

away from his liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied

upon the service report of the District Commission as the same would be

detrimental to him.

CHANDIGARH
DEPONENT
DATED: 11.1.2021
VERIFICATION:-

Verified, that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been kept

concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH
DEPONENT
DATED: 11.1.2021
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO_________________OF 2020

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Limited and another

VS
Navdeep Singh & others

Reply to the Application filed by the

appellant for staying the order dated

17.7.2017 passed by the Ld. District

Forum-II, UT, Chandugarh on behalf

of the respondent No. 1

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
PRELIMINARY OJECTIONS:

1. That the outset, it is submitted that the every aspect of the application that has

not specifically admitted by the respondent No.1 would deemed to have been

denied by the respondent No.1.

2. That the Hon’ble District Commission had allowed the complaint filed the

respondent No. 1 vide a detailed judgement dated 17.8.2018 after considering

all the facts and evidences available on record. The applicant/appellant in his

application as well as in his entire appeal has failed to categorically point out

any reasonable flaw in the judgement.

3. That the applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of

evidence from the District Commission record that he was not served by the

District commission. In absence of any evidence, such alarming and

inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case. As a matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of the said

proceedings and wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted to run
 away from his liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied

upon the service report of the District Commission as the same would be

detrimental to him.

4. That the purpose of filing the present appeal is to just delay the inevitable i.e.

to comply with the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the District Commission

whereby the applicant/appellant Ld. Commission had directed the

applicant/appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant

alongwith interest @9 % per annum and further to pay Rs. 15,000 & Rs 7,000

towards mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses

respectively. The present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

PARAWISE REPLY

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the application are wrong and denied. The

present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary

costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are wrong and denied. There

is no ground for this Hon’ble Commission to grant any stay in the matter.

Rather, if a stay is granted, it would be detrimental to the rights of the

respondent No.1 i.e. the consumer and the entire purpose of these proceedings

will be defeated.

3. That the contents of Para No. 3 (wrongly mentioned as para 4 in the

application) are a matter of record and need no reply.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 (wrongly mentioned as para 3 in the

application) of the application are wrong and denied. No loss would be caused

to the applicant in case no stay is granted as the applicant have not returned

the money that was paid back in the year 2012. The applicant/appellant has
further failed to show even an iota of evidence from the District Commission

record that he was not served by the District commission. In absence of any

evidence, such alarming and inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As a matter of fact, the

applicant/appellant was aware of the said proceedings and wilfully decided

not to defend his case as he wanted to run away from his liability. The

applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied upon the service report of the

District Commission as the same would be detrimental to him.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the present

application and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with

exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

CHANDIGARH RESPONDENT NO.1

DATE: 11.1.2020 THROUGH

MUKESH MEHRA
ADVOCATE
P-2510/2016
 BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO_________________OF 2020

M/s Siswan Paradise Pvt. Limited and another

VS
Navdeep Singh & others

AFFIDAVIT OF NAVDEEP SINGH

RESIDENT OF NEAR KABIR PARK,
PO RS MILLS, GT ROAD,
AMRITSAR-143104

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as

under:

PRELIMINARY OJECTIONS:

PRELIMINARY OJECTIONS:

1. That the outset, it is submitted that the every aspect of the application that has

not specifically admitted by the respondent No.1 would deemed to have been

denied by the respondent No.1.

2. That the Hon’ble District Commission had allowed the complaint filed the

respondent No. 1 vide a detailed judgement dated 17.8.2018 after considering

all the facts and evidences available on record. The applicant/appellant in his

application as well as in his entire appeal has failed to categorically point out

any reasonable flaw in the judgement.

3. That the applicant/appellant has further failed to show even an iota of

evidence from the District Commission record that he was not served by the

District commission. In absence of any evidence, such alarming and

inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the peculiar facts and circumstances

of the case. As a matter of fact, the applicant/appellant was aware of the said
 proceedings and wilfully decided not to defend his case as he wanted to run

away from his liability. The applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied

upon the service report of the District Commission as the same would be

detrimental to him.

4. That the purpose of filing the present appeal is to just delay the inevitable i.e.

to comply with the order dated 17.7.2018 passed by the District Commission

whereby the applicant/appellant Ld. Commission had directed the

applicant/appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant

alongwith interest @9 % per annum and further to pay Rs. 15,000 & Rs 7,000

towards mental tension, agony, harassment and litigation expenses

respectively. The present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed

with exemplary costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

PARAWISE REPLY

1. That the contents of para No. 1 of the application are wrong and denied. The

present application and the appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary

costs as the same is a gross abuse of the process of law.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 of the application are wrong and denied. There

is no ground for this Hon’ble Commission to grant any stay in the matter.

Rather, if a stay is granted, it would be detrimental to the rights of the

respondent No.1 i.e. the consumer and the entire purpose of these proceedings

will be defeated.

3. That the contents of Para No. 3 (wrongly mentioned as para 4 in the

application) are a matter of record and need no reply.

4. That the contents of para No. 4 (wrongly mentioned as para 3 in the

application) of the application are wrong and denied. No loss would be caused

to the applicant in case no stay is granted as the applicant have not returned
the money that was paid back in the year 2012. The applicant/appellant has

further failed to show even an iota of evidence from the District Commission

record that he was not served by the District commission. In absence of any

evidence, such alarming and inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. As a matter of fact, the

applicant/appellant was aware of the said proceedings and wilfully decided

not to defend his case as he wanted to run away from his liability. The

applicant/appellant has purposefully not relied upon the service report of the

District Commission as the same would be detrimental to him.

CHANDIGARH
DEPONENT
DATED: 11.1.2021

VERIFICATION:-

Verified, that the contents of my affidavit are true and correct

to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing has been kept

concealed therein.

CHANDIGARH
DEPONENT
DATED: 11.1.2021