Haryana

StateCommission

RP/120/2016

DANGI AUTOMOBILES - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

U.K.AGNIHOTRI

13 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Revision Petition No.   120 of 2016

Date of Institution:       09.12.2016

Date of Decision:         13.12.2016

 

Dangi Automobile Authorized Dealer of Sonalika Tractor, Chandigarh-Ambala Road, Derabassi, Punjab through its authorities signatory.

…….Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Jagir Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o House No.93, Part-I, Village Chhat, Tehsil Dera Bassi, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar Mohali.

 

……Respondent No.1-Complainant

 

2.      Indusland Bank Limited, SCO No.DSS, 316, First Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

 

                        …..Respondent No.2-Opposite Party No.2

 

3.      Indusland Bank Limited (Vehicle Finance Division), 501, Alpha State, 4^th Floor, 39, G.T. Road, Opp. Main Bus Stand, Jallandhar through Branch Manager.

 

…..Respondent No.3-Opposite Party No.3

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                         

Present:     Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioner.

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

          Dangi Automobile-opposite party No.1 is in revision against the order dated August 16^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was never served upon and the District Forum on the presumption of service proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.

3.      He has further urged that 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 December 14^th, 2016.

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

“Service of Op no.2 and 3 complete. Mr. Amit Singla Advocate put his appearance on behalf of OP no.2 and 3 and requested for the adjournment for filing the written statement. As per report of the assistant, the notice to op. no.1 was issued through registered post on 13.7.2016. Despite passing 30 days from issuance of notice to OP no.1 through registered post. It is deemed to be served. Today case called several times since morning. It is already 4 P.M. But there is no appearance on behalf of OP no.1. It seems that OP no.1 is not interested to defend his case. Hence Op no.1 is hereby proceeded ex-parte. Now to come upon 16.9.2016 for filing the written statement on behalf of Op. No.2 and 3.”

 

5.      Perusal of record reveals that on August 16^th, 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.   

6.      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.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on December 14^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

 

December 13th 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

 (D.R.)