Haryana

StateCommission

RP/85/2016

ASUS - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIMANSHU AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.KUKREJA

18 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No  :  85 of 2016

Date of Institution:        06.10.2016

Date of Decision :         18.11.2016

 

 

M/s Asus (Regd. Name : M/s Asus Technology Private Limited) A Company Incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 through its Authorized Representative having office at 402, 4^th Floor, Supreme Chambers, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400058.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Himanshu Aggarwal son of Sh. Suresh Chand, resident of DU-135, Kalra Colony, Palwal, Tehsil and District Palwal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      M/s Flipkart, F-17, Udyog Vihar, Mangolpuri, Delhi -110087.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                     

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri P.K. Kukreja, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by M/s Asus-opposite part No.2 against the order dated May 23^rd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that petitioner was never served upon.  The impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is November 22^nd, 2016.

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

          “Notice sent to OP No.2. not received back either served or unserved, hence deemed to be served.  One month has elapsed.  Case called several times since morning.  But none has appeared on behalf of OP No.2.  It is 3.30 P.M. Further wait is not justified.  Therefore OP No.2 is hereby proceeded ex parte.  Notice was sent to OP No.1 through registered post on 08.04.2016.  Registered cover has been received back without any report of the concerned postman.  So this Forum is not satisfied whether the notice issued has been served or not properly at the given address.  Complainant is directed to furnish fresh registered cover alongwith correct address and copy of complaint so that fresh notice may be issued to OP No.1.  Accordingly, notice will be issued after furnishing of above mentioned address and copy of complaint and RC notice be issued to OP No.1 for 11.07.2016.”

 

4.      Perusal of record reveals that on May 23^rd, 2016, the District Forum proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner to file written version and contest the complaint.   

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file written version 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 petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on November 22^nd, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 18.11.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK