Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/5/2015

Reliance Communications Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aseem Grover - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.Singla & Ammish Goel, Adv.

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Revision Petition No.	:	05 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	18.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	19/02/2015

 

Reliance Communications Limited, through its Manager, 1^st Floor, DLF Building Plot No.2, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101, through its Authorized Representative/Signatory Mr. Garry Rana.

……Appellant/Opposite Party No.1

 

V e r s u s

 

1. Aseem Grover son of Sanjeev Grover, resident of House No.3275, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

2. Syniverse Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., DLF Building No.5, Tower A, 15^th Floor, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
3. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101, through its Manager.

…..Proforma Respondents/Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

 

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

                MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioner.

Sh.Abhinandan Pandhi, Advocate for the respondent/complainant.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

             This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 22.01.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.1 (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte.

2.       The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant was using telecom services of Opposite Party No.1/appellant, on his mobile No.91-9872211751, for his business purpose. It was stated that since there was a problem of reception of signal and other services, the complainant decided to avail of the telecom services of Opposite Party No.3, instead of Opposite Party No.1. Consequently, the complainant made a “Port out” request to Opposite Party No.1, confirmation of which was also sent to him. It was further stated that despite clearing all the dues, in respect of the services availed of from Opposite Party No.1, the “Port Out” request of the complainant was rejected, a number of times, on account of non-payment of outstanding bill. Ultimately, the “Port Out” request code number RP412486 expired, as a result whereof, the complainant had to undergo the whole procedure again, to get telecom services of Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant had visited the office of the Opposite Parties, a number of times, for redressal of his grievance, but to no avail. It was further stated that legal notice was also served upon Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, 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, claiming various reliefs.
3.       On 22.01.2015, when the consumer complaint was fixed for filing of reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, none put in appearance, on its (Opposite Party No.1) behalf, before the District Forum, as a result whereof, it (Opposite Party No.1) was proceeded against exparte, on the said date (22.01.2015).
4.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, against the order dated 22.01.2015.
5.       We have heard the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1,  respondent  No.1/ complainant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6.       The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1, submitted that, no doubt, Opposite Party No.1, was proceeded against exparte on 22.01.2015, as none put in appearance, on its behalf, when the case was called by the District Forum. He further submitted that,  inadvertently, on 06.01.2015, the Counsel concerned, noted down the wrong date, as 28.01.2015, instead of the actual date i.e.  22.01.2015, in the diary, and on the brief of the case, as a result whereof, he could not put in appearance, in the said Forum, on that date (22.01.2015), at the time, when the case was called. He further submitted that the said fact was discovered, by the Counsel concerned, when he appeared before the District Forum, on 28.01.2015, and by that date, Opposite Party No.1, had already been proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, on account of its non-appearance, on 22.01.2015. He also submitted alongwith the Revision-Petition, copies of the brief and diary entries, Annexures P-3 and P-4 (colly.), in support of his submission. He further submitted that, on account of the reasons, aforesaid, neither the Counsel concerned, nor Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, could appear in the District Forum, on 22.01.2015, when the complaint case was called. He further submitted that non-appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, 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 Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, is not allowed to  join the proceedings, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to it (Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1), as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.1, 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 the absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, on 22.01.2015, in the District Forum was intentional and deliberate.
8.       Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated 24.11.2014, and notice was ordered to be  issued  to the Opposite Parties, for  06.01.2015. On 06.01.2015,  Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, put in appearance, through their respective Advocates. As such, the consumer complaint, was adjourned to 22.01.2015, for filing vakalatnama, reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, as also for filing the detailed affidavit, if any, in support of the written version and evidence already filed, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. However, as stated above, on 22.01.2015, when the consumer complaint was fixed for filing of reply and evidence, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, none put in appearance, on its (Opposite Party No.1) behalf, before the District Forum, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, on the said date (22.01.2015), on account of the reason that, inadvertently, on 06.01.2015, the Counsel concerned,  noted down the wrong date, as 28.01.2015, instead of the same (22.01.2015), in the diary and on the brief of the case.
9.       However, whatever the case may be, 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, the 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 Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, that he did not put in appearance, on the date fixed i.e. 22.01.2015, in the District Forum, as he did not confirm the correct date (22.01.2015), which was given, in the complaint, by the District Forum. He could have confirmed the date, from the Reader of the District Forum, 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 Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, to join the proceedings in the District Forum, and file the written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit, 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, the complaint is required to be decided, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s). On account of the negligence of Opposite Party No.1 or its Counsel, the case is being remanded back to the District Forum, allowing it (Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner), to join the proceeding and defend the complaint case. Due to this reason, certainly delay, in the final disposal of complaint, on merits, shall be caused. Such delay is solely attributable to Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, is, thus, liable to be burdened with costs. Cost of Rs.3,000/-, 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 22.01.2015 is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to allow the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, to join the proceedings, from the stage, it was proceeded against exparte, on 22.01.2015, file the written version and 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 No.1, is, however, burdened with costs of Rs.3,000/-. Payment of costs, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, 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 filing the written reply and evidence, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1.

13.             The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 27.02.2015, 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. 27.02.2015, 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.

19/02/2015

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg