Haryana

StateCommission

A/279/2019

AMIT KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN - Opp.Party(s)

PARVEEN KAUSHIK

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

 

First Appeal No :         279 of 2019

Date of Institution:       25.03.2019

Date of Decision :                 04.04.2019

 

 

 

Amit Kumar aged about 38 years, son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of 36, New Anaj Mandi, Samalkha, District Panipat (Haryana)

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, Sector 18, HUDA, Panipat, District Panipat (Haryana) through its Estate Officer.

 

2.      Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, through its Administrator, having office at Rohtak.

 

3.      Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through its Chief Administrator, having office at C-2, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula (Haryana).

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                        

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Rohit Mittal, counsel for the appellant.

 

                            

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Order passed by learned District Forum, Panipat is under challenge by the complainant by filing the instant appeal.

2.      Vide impugned order, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant in default for want of prosecution.

3.      Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had fallen ill and therefore, he could not appear before the learned District Forum on 26.02.2019.  He had requested his friend to make request before the learned District Forum for an adjournment but the said friend failed to do so. 

4.      Be that as it may and without going deeper in the stance taken by the appellant, the Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be suitably met if the impugned order is set aside and the complainant/appellant is granted an opportunity to continue with the complaint filed by him. 

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order dated 26.02.2019 is set aside and the complaint is restored at its original number and place on the board of learned District Forum for further adjudication of the matter.  However, this order shall be subject to costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the complainant to the opposite parties before the Learned District Forum.

6.      The appellant shall put in appearance before the learned District Forum on 30.04.2019 and in the event of doing so, learned District Forum shall summon the opposite parties and proceed with the complaint.

7.      This appeal is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents 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 versus Presiding Officer,  Labour Court,  Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002.

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

 

 

 

Announced 04.04.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK