STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Revision-Petition No. | : | 08 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | : | 19.02.2014 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.03.2014 |
Kuoni Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office at 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Branch Office at SCO No.147-148, First Floor, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through Mehernosh Billimoria-Deputy Manager (Legal).
…..Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2
V e r s u s
Amritpal Singh Gill, S/o Sh.Harbans Singh Gill, Resident of House No.1558, C.G.W.B. Society, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh.
…..Respondent/Complainant
BEFORE:
DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
Argued by:Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.
PER (RETD.),PRESIDENT
2. planned a trip to Malaysia and Singapore, between 15thth
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. inadvertently, his (Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel), Office/Clerk, noted down the wrong date, as 31.01.2014, instead of the actual date i.e. 30.01.2014,in the diary and, as a result whereof, he (Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel),could not put in appearance, in the said Forum, on that date, at the time, when the case was called. He further submitted that, as soon as, the said fact was discovered, by him, he (Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel), immediately, on 31.01.2014, applied for a certified copy of the order dated 30.01.2014, and after explaining the matter, to the management of the Revision-Petitioner, filed the instant Revision-Petition.Alongwith the Revision-Petition, an affidavit of Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2/Revision-Petitioner, who also appeared, before the District Forum, in the aforesaid Consumer Complaint, was also filed, wherein he stated that his Clerk, wrongly noted down the date as 31.01.2014, instead of 30.01.2014. He also submitted alongwith the Revision-Petition, copies of the brief and diary entries, Annexures P-2 (colly.), in support of his submission.
8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, submitted that the absence of the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.2, on 30.01.2014, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate. He further submitted that two to three dates were granted to Opposite Party No.2/Revision-Petitioner, for filing written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit, subject to payment of costs, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that, no cogent and convincing material was produced, on record, by the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner (Counsel in the complaint also), to establish, as to what prevented him, from coming present, in the District Forum, on 30.01.2014. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.2, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
9. perusal of record of the District Forum reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated 21.10.2013 and notice was ordered to be issued to the Opposite Parties, for 29.11.2013, by it (District Forum). On 29.11.2013, Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Counsel, appeared, and filed vakalatnama, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as also memo of appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. The complaint was adjourned to 20.12.2013, for filing written reply, and evidence, on behalf of the Opposite Parties, as also vakalatnama, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3. On 20.12.2013, written reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as also vakalatnama, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, were not filed. On the request of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, the complaint case was adjourned to 13.01.2014, for filing of reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as also, vakalatnama, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, subject to costs, to the tune of Rs.300/-. On 13.01.2014, previous costs of Rs.300/-, were paid to the complainant, by the Opposite Parties. However, reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as also, vakalatnama, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, were not filed. Again, on the request of the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, the complaint case was adjourned, to 30.01.2014, for the purpose, subject to payment of further costs, to the tune of Rs.500/-. On 30.01.2014,
10. , 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.
11. in the diary, and. 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 Opposite Party No.2, for filing written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s), so that the complaint could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are determined by one Forum finally, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. No doubt, for, whatsoever, the reasons may be, by not filing the written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit, as also by not paying the
12.
13. Counsel for the parties.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Pronounced.
March 3, 2014
Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Rg
