Haryana

StateCommission

A/863/2015

KAMAL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FLIPKART INTERNET PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

DEEPAK KUMAR

08 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    863 of 2015

Date of Institution:  09.10.2015

Date of Decision:    08.01.2016

 

Kamal Kumar son of Sh. Ram Kumar, aged 21 years, resident of House No.76, Saraswati Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, Singhawala Road, Ambala City, Haryana.

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Flipkart Internet Private Limited,Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7^th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Industrial Layout, Bangalore – 560034, Karnataka, India Ph:(0124) 6150000. CIN:U51109KA2012PTC066107, through its Authorized Signatory.

          2^nd Address

          Flipkart Internet Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech Park, #56/18 & 55/09, 7^th Floor, Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560068, Karnataka, India.

 

2.      Royal Trading Company, B-4, Ground Floor, Express Market, Ambedkar Road, Ghaziabad, through its Authorized Signatory.

          2^nd Address

          Royal Trading Company, Head Off; 2, Jassipura Morth, Near Delhi Gate, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

 

Present:     Mr. Kamal Kumar, complainant-appellant in person.

                   Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

Kamal Kumar –complainant is in appeal against the order dated August 13^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Petitioner has urged that he wrongly noted the date September 03^rd, 2015 instead of August 13^th, 2015 due to which he could not appear on the date fixed and complaint was dismissed in default. 

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored at its original number.

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has stated that petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he wrongly noted the date.

5.         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. 

6.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside. The complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.

7.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on January 27^th, 2016.

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

  

 

Announced 08.01.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK