Haryana

StateCommission

RP/75/2016

FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN - Opp.Party(s)

SOURABH GOEL

27 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.75 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution: 29.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision: 27.09.2016

 

 

 

Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited, Plot No.34, Sector 56, Near Devinder Vihar, 56-57, Main Road, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, through its duly authorized representative Sh. Arun Raghav.

Petitioner-Opposite Party

 

Versus

 

Ashok Kumar Jain son of late Sh. Magni Ram, resident of C-104, Opposite Mother Diary Booth, Mianwali Colony, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM :   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

Present :             Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

 

 

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

 

          By filing this revision petition, Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited-opposite party (petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated 18.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Consumer Forum is 04.10.2016.

3.      Considering the golden principle that it is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party. No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.  Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner to 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 impugned order 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.  Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      Following Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 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.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on 04.10.2016 the date already fixed.

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

 

September 27th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

 

(U.K.)