STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No.   113 of 2015

Date of Institution:  04.02.2014

Date of Decision:   08.04.2015

Shonak Bansal son of Sh. Ashok Kumar, resident of 832, Raja Sahib Gali, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, Registered Office at 115, Ansal Bhawan 16, K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001 through its authorized signatory.

2.      Sh. Raghunath Sharma, authorized signatory Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited, S.C.O No.136, Near HUDA Office, Sector 17, Jagadhri.

3.      Goel Properties through its proprietor, Jagadhari.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

Present:     Mr. Diwan S. Adlakha, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Vishal Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Ghangas, Advocate for the respondents.

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

By filing this appeal, Shonak Bansal–complainant has challenged the order dated January 19^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Yamuna Nagar, whereby, the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein).

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complaint be restored at its original number.

4.      The purpose of the law is to secure the ends of justice. The laws are not ends in themselves but are only a means for securing justice. It is settled principle of law that contest and decision on merits is always better course unless the concerned party is extremely negligent or the conduct shows a will not to pursue the complaint, dismissal in default shall not subserve the cause of justice.  No such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of the complainant. For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order dated January 19^th, 2015 is set-aside subject to the cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the appellant-complainant to the opposite parties before the District Forum.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The District Forum is directed to issue notice to both the parties and to proceed further in accordance with law.

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

UK