STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :      418 of 2015

Date of Institution:      06.05.2015

Date of Decision :       13.05.2015

Harjinder Singh Bhatia (HS Bhatia) s/o late Shri J.S. Bhatia, Sector 21, Ist Floor, Panchkula. 

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s Hariom Electronic & H/W Store, SCO 37, Shop No.8, FG, Sector-11, Panchkula.

2.      M/s Narang Motors, 920, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002 through its Proprietor.

3.      Exide Industries Limited, C-188, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Harjinder Singh Bhatia-appellant in person.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated April 7^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby complaint No.268 of 2014 filed by him was dismissed in default.

2.      Harjinder Singh Bhatia-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the respondents-opposite parties. Defence of Opposite Party No.1 had been struck off while Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 not putting in appearance, were proceeded exparte. The case was at the stage of arguments. However, the complainant not being present, the complaint was dismissed in default.

3.      It is settled proposition of law that after the parties have closed their evidence and the case is fixed for arguments, the parties have nothing to do except assisting the court. Therefore, the complaint should not have been dismissed for default of appearance when the case was at the stage of arguments. The complainant had no role to play at that stage. The District Forum fell in error in dismissing the complaint for default of appearance.

4.      Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum, Panchkula to decide it afresh in accordance with law.

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

CL