Haryana

StateCommission

RP/26/2016

MOBILE STORE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANKIT GUPTA - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH BHARDWAJ

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                             

                                               

Revision Petition No  :          26 of 2016

Date of Institution:        29.02.2016

Date of Decision :         10.03.2016

 

The Mobile Store Private Limited, Sector 17, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra through its Area Operation Manager cum duly authorized Officer Saurabh Kochhar.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      Ankit Gupta son of Sh. Raj Kumar, resident of House No.878/50, Sector 13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

Respondent-Complainant

 

 

2.      HTC Care Center, Shivam Communication, SCO 67, 1^st Floor, Shri Krishna Market, Sector 7, Kurukshetra through its Signatory.

 

3.      HTC India, Head Office, G4, BPTP Park Center, Sector 30, Near NH8, Gurgaon -122002 through its Signatory.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:               Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate for petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          The Mobile Store Private Limited-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated December 08^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be given to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is March 14^th, 2016.

3.      Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.   The ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the order dated December 08^th, 2015 is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.2000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.  In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on March 14^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

7.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 10.03.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK