Haryana

StateCommission

RP/41/2016

CROMA ELECTRONICS MEASTORE - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARPAN - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN CHAWLA

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No.   41 of 2016

Date of Institution:       03.06.2016

Date of Decision:         05.07.2016

 

 

M/s Croma Electronics Megastore, 1^st Floor, Crown Interiors Mall, 12/7, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana through its Managing Director.

 

(through Manish son of Sh. Sanjay Pratap Singh, Head Cashier, M/s Croma Electronics Megastore, 1^st Floor, Crown Interiors Mall, 12/7, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad, Haryana).

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

Versus

 

1.      Arpan resident of House No.0733, Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s F1, Info Solutions and Services Private Limited, SCO No.95 and 96, 1^st Floor, Sector 17, Faridabad, Haryana.

 

3.      M/s Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, B-1, Sector 81, Phase II, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.

 

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:     Shri Varun Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

                            

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

By filing the present revision petition, M/s Croma Electronics Megastore-opposite party No.1 (petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated May 02^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on May 02^nd,   2016 Manish, official of the petitioner could not appear before the District Forum due to illness and as such, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.  In support thereof, he has placed on record medical certificate (Annexure P-2) issued by Santosh Hospital, Noida (U.P.). 

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside and opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is July 21^st, 2016.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, the revision petition is accepted and the  this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint. 

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      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.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on July 21^st, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

  

Announced 05.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK