Haryana

StateCommission

RP/122/2016

BPTP LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KANAK LATA VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

HEMANT SAINI

09 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No :  122 of 2016

Date of Institution:        13.12.2016

Date of Decision :         09.01.2017

 

1.      M/s BPTP Limited, M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

2.      Shri Kabul Chawla, Chairman & Managing Director, M/s BPTP Limited, M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

3.      Shri C.M. Sharma, Authorized Signatory, M/s BPTP Limited, M11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001

                                      Petitioners-Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Kanak Lata Verma wife of Harish Chandra Verma, resident of House No.D-23, Additional Township, BTPS, Badarpur, New Delhi.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:               Shri Hemant Saini, Advocate for petitioners.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

BPTP Limited and others-opposite parties are in revision against the order dated October 17^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioners were proceeded exparte.

2.      Though the petitioners were proceeded ex parte on the ground that after issuance of the notices one month had elapsed and presumed that they were duly served but it is the case of the petitioners that notices were duly received by them for the date fixed, that is, October 17^th, 2016 but they wrongly noted the date as November 17^th, 2016.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is January 27^th, 2017 for recording evidence of the complainant.

3.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, the revision petition is accepted and  this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the impugned order is set aside and opportunity is granted to the petitioners to file written version and contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioners are accorded opportunity to file written version 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 petitioners are directed to appear before the District Forum, on January 27^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 09.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK