Haryana

StateCommission

RP/114/2017

Haryana Urban Development Authority - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashok Kumar Boora - Opp.Party(s)

Sector-6, Panchkula.

22 Nov 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No: 114 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution:      21.11.2017

                                                          Date of Decision :      22.11.2017

 

1.      Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Chief Administrator, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2.      The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA Building, Sector-13, Hisar.

 

3.      The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Hisar.

 

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Ashok Kumar Boora, aged 38 years, son of Shri Vijay Singh Boora, resident of House No.111, Sector 14-P, Hisar, through his father and Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Vijay Singh Boora, aged 60 years son of Shri Hari Singh, resident of VPO Kharkari, Tehsil and District Hisar.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                   Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:     Shri Sikander Bakshi, counsel for the petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

 

          By filing this revision, Haryana Urban Development Authority and its functionaries-opposite parties (for short ‘HUDA’) have challenged the order dated September 29^th, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the District Forum declined the request of the petitioners to file written version on account of non-payment of cost. 

2.      On September 14^th, 2017, the case was adjourned to September 29^th, 2017 for filing written version by the HUDA subject to the cost of Rs.5000/-. On September 29^th, 2017, written version was filed but it was not accepted by the District Forum on the ground that counsel for the HUDA was not in a position to pay the cost imposed. He made the request that the cost shall be paid on the next date of hearing. Inspite of that, the District Forum did not allow the HUDA to file the written version. Since, the HUDA is a Government Functionary, the cost could be paid on the next date of hearing instead of not allowing the HUDA to file the written version. In considered opinion of this Commission, the approach of the District Forum was fallacious.  It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party.  Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. An opportunity is granted to the HUDA to file written version and to pay cost before the District Forum on November 27^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

3.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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.

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

 

 

 

 

Announced 22.11.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.