Haryana

StateCommission

A/1092/2015

RANDHIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DUA TRADING CO. - Opp.Party(s)

BIMAL INGH

11 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                First Appeal No.           1092 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:       18.12.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         11.02.2016

 

Randhir Singh son of Pal Singh, resident of Village Berthala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

Dua Trading Company, G.T. Road, Shahabad Markanda through Proprietor Gian Chand Dua, resident of Khan Chand Mandi, near Railway Station, Shahabad (M), Tehsil Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.

                              Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                 

Present:     Mr. Vimal Singh, Advocate for the appellant

                   None for the respondent

 

                                                    O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

By filing the instant appeal, Randhir Singh–complainant (appellant herein) has challenged the order dated November 13^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short District Forum), whereby, complaint filed by him was dismissed in default.  

2.      Notice was issued to the respondent by registered post.  Despite service none has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

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

4.         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.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

5.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the appellant-complainant to the opposite party before the District Forum.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The District Forum is directed to issue notice to both the parties and to proceed further in accordance with law.

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

 

 

Announced: 11.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

 

UK