Haryana

StateCommission

RP/124/2016

HDFC GENERAL INSURANCE CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BALWINDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV SHARMA

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   124 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       15.12.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         21.12.2016

  

 

HDFC General Insurance Limited, An HDFC ERGO Company (Formerly L & T General Insurance Company Limited now merged with HDFC General Insurance Limited) through Sh. Gaurav Ahuja, Assistant, Legal Manager, HDFC General Insurance Limited, Stellar I.T. Park, Tower 1, 5^th Floor, Sector 62, Noida-201301.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

Versus

 

1.      Balwinder Kumar, resident of House No.238, V.P.O Kot, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Sonalika Enterprises Jay Jagdambay, Authorized Agent of Sonalika Tractors, Bus Stand Road, Naraingarh through its Proprietor/Manager.

3.      L & T Finance through its Managing Director, having Head Office at 4^th Floor, CT-2, 177, CST Road, Kalina Santacruz, East Mumbai-400098.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

 

Present :    Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          HDFC General Insurance Limited-opposite party No.3 is in revision against the order dated December 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby its defence was struck off on the ground that written version was not filed within 45 days. 

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that impugned order be set aside and petitioner be granted opportunity to file written version and contest the case on merits.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is December 22^nd, 2016 for arguments on the application filed by L & T Finance-opposite party No.2 to dismiss the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and for issuance of notice to opposite party No.1.

3.      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. 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. This revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version on the date fixed before the District Forum.

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

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

 

 

Announced: 21.12.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK