Haryana

StateCommission

RP/81/2016

ARAMEX INDIA PVT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

AVINASH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

SUMIT NARANG

23 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    81 of 2016

Date of Institution:       21.09.2016

Date of Decision:         23.11.2016

 

Aramex India Private Limited, Kishangarh, IT Park, (U.T.) Chandigarh.

Also At:

Registered office, Aramex India Private Limited. 821, solitaire corporate park, Andheri Ghatkoper Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

Mr. Avinash Kumar son of late Shri Gulzari Lala Nanda, resident of House No.308, P.W.D. Colony, Sector-14, Panchkula, Haryana-134113.

……Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. Arvind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

                   Mr. Avinash Kumar-respondent in person.    

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

          Aramex India Private Limited-opposite party No.3 is in revision against the order dated August 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved.

3.      Learned counsel has further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is December 02^nd, 2016.

4.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioner.  Petitioner was proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

“As per report of the concerned assistant notice was issued to op no.3 through registered post on dt. 9.7.2016 and the same has not been received served or unserved. Despite passing 30 days from issuance of notice to op no.3 through registered post. It is deemed to be served. Case called several times since morning. It is already 4 P.M. But there is no appearance on behalf of op no.3 after effecting service through registered post. It seems that Op no.3 is not interested to defend his case. Hence Op no.3 is hereby proceeded ex-parte. Now to come upon 31^st August, 2016 for filing evidence of the complainant and for filing evidence of op no.1.”

 

5.      Perusal of record reveals that on August 11^th, 2016, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, as notice of the complaint not received back served or unserved and more than one month had passed. Thus, it becomes clear that on the presumption of service, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner. It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.   

6.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version and join the proceedings.

7.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on December 02^nd, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

         

Announced 23.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.