Haryana

StateCommission

RP/45/2016

JOSHI AUTOSCANS PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GURMEET KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VERMA

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  45 of 2016

Date of Institution:        09.06.2016

Date of Decision :         05.07.2016

 

 

1.      Joshi Autoscans Private Limited, SCO 369, Sector 8, Panchkula.

2.      Honda Motor Cycle and Scooter India Private Limited, Commercial Complex II, Sector 49-50, Cold Course Extension Road, Gurgaon, Haryana -122018 India through its Director/Managing Director/Partner/Authorized Signatory.

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

Versus

 

1.      Gurmeet Kaur son of Sh. Dev Kumar, resident of VPO Samgoli, Tehsil Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Aviate Automax Private Limited (Honda Exclusive Authorized Dealer) through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Representative NH-73, Village Batour, Barwala, District Panchkula – 134118.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Rajesh Verma, Advocate for petitioners.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Joshi Autoscans Private Limited and another-opposite parties No.2 & 3 against the order dated March 28^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that petitioners were never served upon.  The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioners to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is July 15^th, 2016.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the petitioners.  Petitioners were proceeded ex parte by the District Forum vide impugned order observing as under:-

          “Service of OP No.1 is complete.  OP No.1 seeks time for filing written statement.  As per report of the concerned assistant notice was issued to Ops No.2 and 3 through registered post on 23.02.2016 but the same has not been received served or unserved. Despite passing 30 days from issuance of notice to Ops No. 2 & 3. It is deemed to be served.  Case called several times since morning.  It is already 4 P.M but there is no appearance on behalf of Ops No.2 and 3.  It seems that Ops No.2 and 3 are not interested to defend their case.  Hence Ops No.2 and 3 are hereby proceeded ex parte.  Now to come upon 25^th April, 2016 for filing written statement of Op No.1 alongwith entire evidence.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on March 28^th, 2016, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioners, 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners to file reply and contest the complaint.   

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply 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.      The petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on July 15^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 05.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK