Haryana

StateCommission

RP/140/2016

Amazon India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manik Sethi - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                 

Revision Petition No :  140 of 2016

Date of Institution:        19.12.2016

Date of Decision :         23.01.2017

 

Amazon India, Registered Office Address; Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, India through Mr. Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel (Litigation) and its Authorized Signatory.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Manik Sethi son of Mr. Ajay Sethi, resident of House No.43, Ram Nagar, Opposite Housing Board Colony, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Gadget Bucket Online Marketing LLP, Plot No.16, Next to Ashirwad Building, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Masjid (East), Mumbai -49.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

                                     

Present:               Shri Nitin Thatai, Advocate for petitioner.

                             Manik Sethi-complainant in person

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Amazon India-opposite part No.1 against the order dated September 30^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (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 February 09^th, 2017.

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:-

          “None is present on behalf of Ops till today despite registered notices issued to Ops as per postal receipts dated 29.08.2016 not received back in any manner.  Mandatory period of 30 days from issuance of the notice has elapsed.  As such, it is presumed that the notice has been duly served upon the OPs.  Case called repeatedly since morning but none on behalf of Ops has put in appearance.  It is already 3.30 p.m.  No further wait is justified.  Hence, OPs No.1 and 2 are hereby proceeded against ex parte.  Now, the case is adjourned to 14.10.2016 for exparte evidence of complainant.”

4.      Perusal of order shows that on September 30^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. Whatever the case may be, it is settled principle of law, that every lis should normally be decided, on merits, than by resorting to hyper- technicalities. When hyper-technicalities, and the substantial justice, are pitted against each other, then the latter shall prevail over the former. The procedure, is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. The procedural Rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provisions, may result in the stifling of material evidence, of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond its control. We must always remember that procedural law, is not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to the just disposal of a case, regulatory requirement should not be enthroned into a dominant desideratum. The Courts and the quasi-Judicial Tribunals, have been set up, with the sole purpose of dispensing justice, and not to wreck the end result, on technicalities. 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.      In the instant case, there is a dispute of only Rs.477/-, the District Forum is directed to decide the complaint expeditiously preferably within a period of three months, which shall be from February 09^th, 2017. 

7.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on February 09^th, 2017, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 17.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK