Haryana

StateCommission

RP/1/2016

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT.LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ BINDAL - Opp.Party(s)

HITENDER KANSAL

11 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

 

                                                Revision Petition No.01 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution: 01.01.2016

                                                Date of Decision: 11.01.2016

 

 

 

M/s Skoda Auto India Private Limited, Plot No.1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial, MIDC, TQ & District Aurangabad 431 201, Maharashtra India.

Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Manoj Bindal s/o Sh. Trilok Chand Bindal, resident of D-27/311/4, Shiv Puri Mohalla, Palwal, District Palwal, Haryana.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Arshia Motors, Plot No.5-B, Sector 15-A, Crown Plaza Mall, Main Mathura Road, Faridabad – 121002.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

3.      Jai Auto (Skoda) Near Sarita Vihar, Metro Station, Sartia Vihar, New Delhi.

 Respondent-Opposite Party No.3

 

CORAM :   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                  

Present :             Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                           

O R D E R

 

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:

 

          By filing this revision petition, M/s Skoda Auto India Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (petitioner herein) has challenged the order dated May 06^th, 2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby petitioner was proceeded ex parte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed power of attorney on behalf of opposite party No.2.  However, by mistake his presence was marked on behalf of opposite party No.3 and even opposite party No.3 was proceeded ex parte on 30^th November, 2015. An opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Consumer Forum is January 21^st, 2016.

3.      Considering the golden principle that it is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party. 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. 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 order dated May 06^th, 2015 is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum.  Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      Following Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur(CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27^th, 2002 passed by a Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, this revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on January 21^st, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

 

January 11th, 2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

 

(U.K.)