Haryana

StateCommission

A/696/2015

MAMTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.RENA KAPOOR - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

15 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Appeal No.                       696 of 2015

Date of Institution:  24.08.2015

Date of Decision:   15.09.2015

 

Mamta wife of Shri Pawan Sharma, Advocate, resident of c/o Shri Ram Chand Sharma, Pandit Mohalla, Village Fatehpur Chandila, Faridabad.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

Dr. Reema Kapoor (M.D) Kapoor Diagnostics, 20/21-L, NH-V, Fruit Garden, Near Garden Automobiles Railway Road, NIT, Faridabad.

                           Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

         

                                      

Present:     Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the appellant

                   Mr. Yadvinder Pal, Advocate for the respondent

                    

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Smt. Mamta –complainant against the order dated April 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Faridabad, whereby, the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. (respondent herein).

3.         Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be restored at its original number.

4.         Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. The purpose of the law is to secure the ends of justice. The laws are not ends in themselves but are only a means for securing justice. It is settled principle of law that contest and decision on merits is always better course unless the concerned party is extremely negligent or the conduct shows a will not to pursue the complaint, dismissal in default shall not subserve the cause of justice.  No such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of the complainant. 

5.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order dated April 30^th, 2015 is set-aside.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on October 15^th, 2015.

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

 

 

Announced: 15.09.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK