Haryana

StateCommission

RP/80/2015

Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Avtar Singh - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  80 of 2015

Date of Institution:        08.10.2015

Date of Decision :         19.10.2015

 

 

Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Limited, near Vishvamitri Railway Over Bridge, Vishvamitri, Vadodara, Gujarat-390011, through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Pavan Deolia.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Avtar Singh son of Sh. Harveer Singh, resident of Village Panjola, Tehsil and District Ambala, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      M/s Kamal Automobiles, Authorized Dealer, Mahindra Gujarat Tractors, Hisar Road, Near Ghungat Farm, Ambala City (Haryana) through its proprietor Mr. Kamal.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Limited-opposite party No.2 against the order dated March 20^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Ambala, whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that petitioner was never served upon.  The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is October 26^th, 2015.

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

          “Registered notices issued to Ops No.1 & 2 vide receipt No.RH165474144IN & No.EH615362550IN dated 09.02.2015 not received back served or unserved.  A mandatory period of thirty days from issuance of the notices have elapsed.  Case called several times since morning.  It is 3.50 P.M.  Further wait is not justified.  As such, Ops No.1 & 2 are hereby proceeded against ex parte.  The case is fixed for ex parte evidence of complainant on 01.05.2015.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on March 20^th, 2015, 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 reply and contest the complaint.    For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the order dated March 20^th, 2015 is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.3000/- 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.

6.      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.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on October 26^th, 2015, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 19.10.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK