Haryana

StateCommission

RP/115/2016

RAHEJA DEVELOPERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.GAURAV VOHRA - Opp.Party(s)

ARNAV SETHI

23 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No :  115 of 2016

Date of Institution:        07.12.2016

Date of Decision :         23.12.2016

 

 

 

M/s Raheja Developers Limited having its registered office at W4D, 204/5, Keshav Kunj, Western Avenue, Cariappa Marg, Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062 through its Authorized Signatory Sh. D.S. Negi.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Rajeev Gupta son of Sh. Tek Chand Garg, resident of House No.138, Sector 25, Panchkula.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Mr. Avneesh Saran, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

 

By filing the present revision petition, M/s Raheja Developers-opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioners’) have challenged the order dated September 21^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby they were proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that on the date fixed, that is, September 21^st, 2016 Shri Om Shiv Yadav, Advocate was asked to appear on behalf of the petitioners and he informed the petitioners that the case was adjourned to November 07^th, 2016 because the President of the District Forum was on leave.  On November 07^th, 2016 when counsel on behalf of the petitioners appeared, he learnt that the petitioners were already proceeded ex parte. 

3.      Learned counsel has further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is January 17^th, 2017.

4.      Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.   The ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file written version 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 impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.10,000/- which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioners are accorded opportunity to file written version 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.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 23.12.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK