Haryana

StateCommission

RP/96/2015

General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deepak Kataria - Opp.Party(s)

21 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                             

                                               

Revision Petition No  :          96 of 2015

Date of Institution:        11.12.2015

Date of Decision :         21.12.2015

 

General Manager, Aravali Auto Showroom, Plot No.66, IDC, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon – 122001 (Haryana).

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.3

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

1.      Deepak Kataria aged 27 years, resident of House No.1314, Laxman Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Managing Director, Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, Registered Office at Block B, Chandrapura Industrial Estate, District Halol – 389351, District Panchmahals, Gujarat (India).

 

3.      General Motors, Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited, Regional Office at Plot No.15, First Floor, Sector 32, Gurgaon – 122001 (Haryana).

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.1 & 2

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

 

Present:               Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          General Manager, Aravali Auto Showroom -opposite party No.3 (petitioner herein) has filed the instant revision petition against the order dated September 24^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Deepak Kataria– complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that one of the employee of the petitioner has inadvertently refused to accept the notice and petitioner was proceeded ex parte.  He further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be given to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is January 08^th, 2016.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and 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 September 24^th, 2014 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. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      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.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on January 08^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 21.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK