Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/37/2015

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Harmeet Singh - Opp.Party(s)

A.R. Takkar, R.K. Goyal & Shubhankar Baweja

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Revision Petition No.	:	37 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	28.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	31.08.2015

 

 

 

1. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (Airport Office), Room No.2, 4^th Floor, Level-1, I.G.I. Airport, Delhi, through its authorized person.
2. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, (City Office), Tower-8C, DLF City Phase-II, Gurgaon-122008, through its authorized person.

…… Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

Versus

 

1. Harmeet Singh, son of Sh. Ajit Singh, resident of Village Issewal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab.

              ....Respondent/Complainant.

2. G. K. Enterprises (Regd.), SCO – 148-149, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Authorized person/prop./partner/M.D./Director.

 

 ….Respondent/Opposite Party No.1.

 

BEFORE:  MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                    MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

               

Argued by:  

 

Sh. Shubhankar, Advocate for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3.

Sh. Jagpal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

 

PER DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER

            This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.07.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 (now Revision-Petitioners), were proceeded against exparte.

2.         Consumer Complaint bearing No.274 of 2015, was filed by the complainant, on the ground that he purchased tickets in the name of Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur and Paramvir Singh Master from Opposite Party No.1 for journey to be undertaken from Barcelona to Delhi via Amsterdam for 28.1.2015 and paid Rs.35,800/- on 6.1.2015. It was stated that Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur and Paramvir Singh Master were holding the confirmed tickets. It was further stated that Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur met with an accident by falling on the staircase, fracturing her one leg and as such, she was unable to undertake the journey aforesaid. It was further stated that the complainant immediately requested Opposite Party No.1, to cancel the air ticket and refund Rs.35,800/- on medical grounds but it informed that Opposite Party No.2 had refused to refund the amount. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties withheld the aforesaid amount of the air tickets without any reasonable ground. It was further stated that the complainant served a legal notice dated 19.2.2015 upon the Opposite Parties but to no avail.

3.         It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.35,000/- for cancelled air tickets; Rs.20,000/- for causing deficiency, in rendering service, mental pain, agony and & torture and Rs.22,000/- as litigation charges, totaling Rs.77,000/-. 

4.         Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted issuance of air tickets in the name of Nirmaljit Kaur and Paramvir Singh Master for air journey from Barcelona to Delhi via Amsterdam to be undertaken on 28.01.2015. It was stated that on 23.1.2015, Opposite Party No.1 received a call from Barceloan that unfortunately, the complainant met with an accident and unable to travel on 28.01.2015 and requested if there was any possibility of getting the date extended. It was further stated that the complainant was informed that the same was not possible and she was advised to contact nearby office of KLM alongwith medical documents. It was further stated that as per the rules of the I.A.T.A, it was not in the hands of the Air Line to change the date or refund the air fare in such situations. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         Since none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, before the District Forum, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 16.07.2015.

6.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, against the order dated 16.07.2015.

7.             We have heard the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, respondent No.1/complainant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

8.        The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, submitted that, no doubt,  Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte on 16.07.2015 by the District Forum. He further submitted that absence of the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, on 16.07.2015, in the District Forum, was, neither intentional, nor deliberate, but due to the reason that the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, noted wrong date of hearing as 17.07.2015 and due to this inadvertent mistake, the Counsel  could not appear before the District Forum on 16.07.2015. He further submitted that the factum of the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 having been proceeded exparte came to his knowledge on 17.07.2015, when he attended the District Forum for hearing. He further submitted that the Counsel immediately applied for the certified copy of order dated 16.07.2015 on the same date i.e. 17.07.2015, which was supplied to him on 22.07.2015. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, as, in that event, it would be deprived of filing written statement, as also evidence to rebut the case set up by the complainant. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 have no objection, in case, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside, subject to payment of costs by the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, is liable to be set aside, and the case deserves to be remanded back, to it, for fresh decision, after affording them (Opposite Parties No.2 & 3) an opportunity of filing the written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s).  

9.         On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that the absence of the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 on 16.07.2015, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate.

10.            Perusal of the District Forum record,  reveals that on 16.06.2015, Sh. Sushil Kumar, Manager appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and filed reply, whereas, Sh. R. K. Goyal, Advocate put in appearance for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 in the District Forum and filed his memorandum of appearance and the complaint case was adjourned to 16.07.2015 for filing vakalatnama, reply and evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. On 16.07.2015, since none appeared, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, they were proceeded against exparte by the District Forum and the case was fixed for 07.08.2015 for filing affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. 

11.       In Para No.2 of the memorandum of Revision Petition, it was admitted by the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 that their Counsel mistakenly noted wrong date of hearing as 17.07.2015, as a result whereof, none could put in appearance on their behalf on 17.07.2015.

12.       However, whatever the case may be, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper- technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. In State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect that procedure, is, in the ultimate, handmaid of justice, and not its mistress, and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities.

13.       No doubt, there was negligence, on the part of Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, in not noting down the correct date viz. 16.07.2015, given by the District Forum for filing vakalatnama, reply and evidence of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 and affidavit of Opposite Party No.1. Since, the Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 did not take the requisite measures, negligence was attributable to him. It is settled principle of law, that for the negligence or inadvertence of the Counsel, the party should not suffer. In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to Opposite PartiesNo.2 & 3, to contest the complaint, so that the same could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined by Forum, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

14.        No doubt, the Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, statedly appeared on 17.7.2015 before the District Forum and applied for certified copy of the impugned order dated 16.7.2015, as is evident from the certified copy of the said order annexed with the Revision-Petition, which was supplied to him on 22.07.2015. On account of the inadvertence or negligence of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 or their Counsel, delay in the disposal of complaint, on merits, has already been caused.  Even further delay in disposal of the complaint shall be caused, on account of remand of the same for fresh decision. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, an endeavour shall be made to decide the consumer complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory for examination. In that event, an endeavour shall be made to decide the consumer complaint, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Parties. The consumer complaint bearing No.274 of 2015 was filed on 06.05.2015. A period of three months lapsed on 05.08.2015. For causing delay, in the disposal of complaint, on merits, beyond the period of three months, the Revision Petitioners - Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 are required to be burdened with costs.

15.             For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition is accepted. The order dated 16.07.2015, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-, by the Revision-Petitioners/Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, to respondent No.1/complainant. The District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity, to Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, for filing vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), and thereafter decide the complaint, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law. The payment of cost to the tune of Rs.3,000/-, referred to above, to respondent No.1/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of cost, shall be made, before filing the vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s).

16.       The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (I) on 10.09.2015 at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.

17.       The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 10.09.2015 at 10.30 A.M.

18.       Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

19.       The Revision-Petition file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

August   31, 2015

Sd/-

[DEV RAJ]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER