Haryana

StateCommission

RP/97/2016

VARUN BEVERGES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVENDER KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

BRIG.B.S.TAUNQUE,RETD.

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.    97 of 2016

Date of Institution:       08.11.2016

Date of Decision:         07.12.2016

 

M/s Varun Baverages Limited, Village Aliasgarpur, Post Office Ganjbar, G.T. Road, Panipat, through its authorized person, PIN-132103.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Devender Kumar, Advocate, age 36 years, Chamber No.123, District Courts Complex, Hisar.

                                                          …..Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Pepsico India Limited, P.O. Box No.27, DLF Qutab Enclave-1, Gurgaon, through its authorized person, PIN-122002.

 

……Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.1

 

3.      Akshay Agencies, 10 KM Stone, Tosham Road, Hisar, through its authorized person, PIN-125001.

 

……Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

4.      Kalani Hospital Canteen, Kalani Hospital, Azad Nagar, Hisar, Tehsil and District Hisar, through its authorized person.

 

……Respondent No.4-Opposite Party No.4

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

 

Present:     Mr. B.S. Taunque, counsel for the petitioner.

                                      

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

          The instant revision petition has been filed by M/s. Varun Beverages Limited-opposite party No.2 against the orders dated November 13^th, 2015 and August 24^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and it’s application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed respectively. 

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that petitioner was never served upon.  The orders 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 14^th, 2016.

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:-

“Memo of appearance filed by Sh. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate on behalf of opposite party No.1. Registered cover sent to opposite party No.2 not received back. A period of more than 30 days has already elapsed and there is presumption of service. Opposite party No.4 is not present despite service. Case called several times since morning. It is already 2.30 p.m., none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 4. Hence, Ops No.2 & 4 are proceeded against ex-parte. Regd. Cover of opposite party No.3 received back unserved. Now fresh notice be issued to opposite party No.3 for 7.1.2016 on filing of R.C./A.D. and also for filing written statement alongwith power of attorney on behalf of opposite party No.1”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on November 13^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 written version and contest the complaint.   

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders dated November 13^th, 2015 and August 24^th, 2016 are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version 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 December 14^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

         

Announced 07.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.