Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/23/2015

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amarjit Singh Multani - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Walia, Adv.

01 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                      

Revision Petition No.	:	23 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.06.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.07.2015

 

Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., Head Office: SCO No.2415-16, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Signatory/ Director.

……Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Amarjit Singh Multani son of Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Quarter No.12, Type-III, SLIET Longowal, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

 

Revision-Petition under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh.Raman Walia, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.

                Sh. Vishal Satija, Advocate for the respondent.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 06.04.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, the Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte, as none put in appearance, on its behalf, when the case was called on the said date (06.04.2015).

2.       The facts, in brief, are that the complainant filed consumer complaint bearing No.41 of 2015 alleging that, on the assurances made by the Opposite Party, with regard to his permanent settlement in Canada, he had submitted all the requisite documents, as also deposited the hefty amount towards fees and other charges, but, on the other hand, only on account of the reason that his case had not been handled properly by it, the same (case) was rejected by the Canadian Embassy. It was stated that not only this, out of the deposited amount, the complainant was only refunded the amount of Rs.32,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was not refunded, despite various requests having been made by him, to the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party, through every possible means, with a request to refund the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-, alongwith interest and compensation, but to no avail.   It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs, from the Opposite Party.

3.       On 06.04.2015, when the complaint case was fixed for filing reply and evidence, by way of affidavit, on behalf of the Opposite Party (now Revision-Petitioner), none put in appearance, on its (Opposite Party) behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum. Later on, an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.04.2015, was filed by the Opposite Party, which was dismissed on 27.05.2015, by the District Forum, holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order.
4.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, against the order dated 06.04.2015.
5.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6.       The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party, submitted that, no doubt, none put in appearance, on behalf  of the Opposite Party, on 06.04.2015, when the complaint case was fixed for filing reply and evidence,  by it (Opposite Party), as a result whereof, it (Opposite Party) was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum. He further submitted that, since on the previous date, he (main Counsel) suddenly had to go out of station, to see one of his close relatives, who was admitted in the Hospital, at Delhi, he requested his friend Mr. Navjeevan Gupta, Advocate, to put appearance, on his behalf on the date fixed, and make a request to the District Forum, to give a short date, for filing reply and evidence, by way of affidavit, but he (Mr. Navjeevan Gupta, Advocate) inadvertently,  noted down the wrong date,  in the diary, and on the brief of the case, and conveyed the same to him (main Counsel), as a result whereof, he (main Counsel) could not put in appearance, in the said Forum, on 06.04.2015, at the time, when the case was called. He further submitted that the said fact was discovered, by him, when he appeared before the District Forum, on 04.05.2015, and by that date, the Opposite Party, had already been proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, on account of its non-appearance, on 06.04.2015. He further submitted that, later on, an application for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.04.2015, was filed by the Opposite Party, which was dismissed on 27.05.2015, by the District Forum, holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order. He further submitted that, on account of the reasons, aforesaid, neither he, nor any authorized representative of the Opposite Party/Revision-Petitioner, could appear in the District Forum, on 06.04.2015, when the complaint case was called. He further submitted that  non-appearance of the Opposite Party, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, was neither intentional nor deliberate, but on account of the circumstances, referred to above. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, and the Opposite Party/Revision-Petitioner, is not allowed to  join the proceedings, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party), as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against the Opposite Party, is liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to the remanded back, to it, for fresh decision, after affording it an opportunity to join further proceedings.  
7.       On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that, no doubt, the absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, on 06.04.2015, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate, yet, in the interest of justice, he has no objection if the Revision-Petition is accepted, and the order impugned is set aside, subject to payment of heavy costs.
8.       Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated 28.01.2015,  and  notice   was ordered   to   be   issued to the Opposite Party for 13.03.2015, by  it (District Forum). On 13.03.2015, Sh. Raman Walia, Advocate, appeared and filed his power of attorney, on behalf of the Opposite Party. The consumer complaint was adjourned to 06.04.2015, for filing of reply and evidence, by way of affidavit, on behalf of the Opposite Party. However, as stated above, on 06.04.2015, since none put in appearance, on behalf of the Opposite Party, on account of the reason, that on the previous date, the main Counsel, suddenly had to go out of station to see one of his close relatives, who was admitted in the Hospital, at Delhi, and he requested his friend Mr. Navjeevan Gupta, Advocate, to put in appearance, on his behalf, and make a request to the District Forum, to give a short date, for filing written statement and evidence, but he (Mr. Navjeevan Gupta, Advocate) inadvertently, noted down the wrong date,  in the diary and, on the brief of the case, and conveyed the same to him (main Counsel), as a result whereof, he  (main Counsel) could not put in appearance, in the said Forum, on 06.04.2015, at the time, when the case was called, as a result whereof, it (Opposite Party) was proceeded against exparte, by it (District Forum). On the other hand, application for setting aside the exparte order dated 06.04.2015, moved by the Opposite Party, was dismissed on 27.05.2015, by the District Forum, holding that it (District Forum), was not vested with the power to review/recall its own order.
9.       It may be stated here that, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper-technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. In State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that procedure, is, in the ultimate, handmaid of justice, and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.
10.       No doubt, it was, on account of the negligence of the main Counsel for the Opposite Party, that he blindly relied upon the wrong date conveyed to him, by Mr. Navjeevan Gupta, Advocate, whom he deputed to put in appearance, on his behalf, as he suddenly had to go out of station, to see one of his close relatives, who was allegedly admitted in the Hospital, at Delhi. The main Counsel could have confirmed the date, from the Reader of the District Forum, when he came back from Delhi, but he failed to do so. Since, the Counsel did not take the requisite measures, referred to above, negligence was attributable to him. It is settled principle of law, that for the negligence or inadvertence of the Counsel, the party should not suffer. In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to the Opposite Party/Revision-Petitioner, to join the proceedings, in the District Forum, and defend the complaint, so that the same could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined, by one Forum, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.
11.       According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, every endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory, for examination. In that event, endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). On account of the negligence of the Opposite Party, or its Counsel, the case is being remanded back to the District Forum, allowing it (Opposite Party/Revision-Petitioner), to join the proceeding, and defend the complaint case. Due to this reason, certainly further delay, in the final disposal of complaint, on merits, shall be caused. Such delay is solely attributable to the Opposite Party/Revision-Petitioner. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party is, thus, liable to be burdened with costs. Cost of Rs.3000/-, if imposed upon the Revision-Petitioner, in our considered opinion, shall meet the ends of justice.
12.        For the reasons, recorded above, the Revision-Petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 06.04.2015 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to allow the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, to join the proceedings, from the stage, it was proceeded against exparte, on 06.04.2015, and give it one opportunity for filing written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit, and then decide the same (complaint case), on merits, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, is, however, burdened with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Payment of costs, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party, to the respondent/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the costs shall be paid, before joining the proceedings, in the District Forum, and prosecuting the complaint case, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party.
13.       The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 08.07.2015, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.
14.       The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 08.07.2015, at 10.30 A.M.
15.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.       The Revision-Petition file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

July 1, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg