Haryana

StateCommission

A/382/2016

KULDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIA TIMES ECSTASY - Opp.Party(s)

SURYA PRATAP SINGH

01 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.   382 of 2016

Date of Institution: 03.05.2016

Date of Decision:   01.07.2016

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Ajmer Singh, resident of House No.1640, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      India Times Ecstasy IT Park, Plot No.391, Udyog Vihar, Phase 3, Gurgaon through its Manager/Proprietor/Partner.

2.      Kurukshetra Communication, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.      Panasonic India Private Limited, 1^st Floor, ABW Tower, IFFCO Chowk, Sector 25, Gurgaon, 122001, through its Manager/Managing Director.

                             Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                

Present:     Shri Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Shri Parneet Singh Bhangu, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Shri Ankush Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This appeal has been filed by Kuldeep Singh–complainant against the order dated April 04^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the complainant wrongly noted the date, due to which he could not appear on the date fixed and complaint was dismissed in default. 

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored at its original number.

4.       It is settled principle of law that contest and decision on merits is always better course unless the concerned party is extremely negligent or the conduct shows a will not to pursue the complaint, dismissal in default shall not subserve the cause of justice.  No such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of the complainant.

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside.  The complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.

6.      The District Forum is directed to issue notice to the parties and shall proceed in accordance with law.

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

 

 

Announced: 01.07.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK