STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T.,CHANDIGARH
Revision Petition No. | : | 25 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 24.09.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 10/10/2013 |
Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited, through its Managing Director, 02, PHOENIX, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411001 and others
…..Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1
V e r s u s
1.Mohinder Kaur, w/o Sh. Sohan Singh Sood, resident of House No.2600, Phase-6, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…..Respondent no.1/Complainant
Proforma Respondents
2.Marketing Manager, 4thService dispensed with vide order dated 26.09.2013).
….. Respondent no.2/Opposite Party No.2
3.Managing Director, Heritage Auto Sales, Authorized Dealer Piaggo Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., SCO 144-145, Sector 43-B, Himalayan Mark, Chandigarh-160017. (Service dispensed with vide order dated 26.09.2013).
….. Respondent no.3/Opposite Party No.3
BEFORE:
Argued by:Sh. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.
PER (RETD.),PRESIDENT
2.
3.
4.
5. proceeded against exparte.
6.
7.
8.
9. inadvertently, his (Sh. Vivek Sethi, Counsel), Clerk, noted down the wrong date, as 29.08.2013, instead of the actual date i.e. 19.08.2013, as a result whereof, he (Sh. Vivek Sethi, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1),could not put in appearance, in the said Forum, on that date, at the time, when the case was called. He further submitted that the said fact was discovered on 04.09.2013, i.e. the next date of hearing, in the complaint case, when he appeared in the District Forum. He further submitted that the absence of Opposite Party No.1 or its Counsel, on the date fixed, was neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, aforesaid. It was further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occasion, to the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, as, in that event, it would be condemned unheard. He further submitted that, thus, the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.1, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1/complainant, submitted that the absence of the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1, on 19.08.2013, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate. He further submitted that three to four dates were granted to Opposite Party No.1/Revision-Petitioner, for filing written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that, no cogent and convincing material was produced, on record, by the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner (Counsel in the complaint also), to prove, as to what prevented him, from coming present, in the District Forum, on 19.08.2013. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, in proceeding exparte against Opposite Party No.1, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
11. perusal of record of the District Forum reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated 25.04.2013 and notice was ordered to be issued to the Opposite Parties, for 10.06.2013, by
12. , the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that procedure, is, in the ultimate handmaid of justice, and not its mistress and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct 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.
13. ince, the Counsel did not take the requisite measures, referred to above, negligence was attributable to him.It is settled principle of law, that for the negligence or inadvertence of the Counsel, the party should not suffer. In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to Opposite Party No.1, for filing written version and evidence, so that the complaint could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are determined by one Forum finally one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. No doubt, for, whatsoever, the reason may be, by not filing the written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit, Opposite Party No.1/Revision Petitioner, certainly caused delay, in the disposal of the complaint, on merits.
14.
15. Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner and respondent no.1.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Pronounced.
10/10/2013
Rg
