Haryana

StateCommission

RP/15/2016

UNITED AIRLINES - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.D.TANEJA - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH KUMAR GARG

19 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                     

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  15 of 2016

Date of Institution:                 03.02.2016

Date of Decision :         19.02.2016

 

The Manager, United Airlines, 11nd Floor, Tower ‘C’, Cyber Green, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon through its Authorized Signatory.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

 

1.      K.D. Taneja r/o House no.876, Sector 4, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon – 122001.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      The Manager, Jet Airways, Jet Air House, 13, Commercial Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi – 110016.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:               Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for petitioner

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present revision petition, The Manager, United Airlines-opposite party No.1 (petitioner) has challenged the order dated December 22^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short District Forum) whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that official of the petitioner was to file the reply on December 22^nd, 2015 but for some reason or the other he could not reach the District Forum.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is March 29^th, 2016.

3.      It is well settled principle of law that no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to allow the petitioner to contest the complaint. 

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.2000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      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.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on March 29^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 19.02.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

U.K