Haryana

StateCommission

A/906/2015

RAKESH GAUTAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SWAAGAT AUTHORIZED DEALER - Opp.Party(s)

RAMAN B. GARG

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.    906 of 2015

Date of Institution:  16.10.2015

Date of Decision:    17.12.2015

 

Rakesh  Gautam son of Sh. Balraj Gautam, resident of House No.29-A, Chaman Garden, Railway Road, Karnal (Haryana).

Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Swaagat Authorized Dealer, C/o 220-221, 1^st Floor, Kunjpura Road, Above Peter England Garments, Opp. Head Post Office, Karnal through its authorized signatory.

 

2.      The Manager Consumer Support, Apple India (P) Ltd, 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’, U.B. City No.24, Vittal Mallaya Road, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

 

Present:     Ms. Gitanjali, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Manvinder Dalal, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant appeal has been filed by Rakesh  Gautam –complainant against the order dated September 10^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby, the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner wrongly noted the date September 14^th, 2015 instead of September 10^th, 2015 due to which he could not appear on the date fixed and complaint was dismissed in default. 

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored at its original number.

4.         The purpose of the law is to secure the ends of justice. The laws are not ends in themselves but are only a means for securing justice. It is settled principle of law that contest and decision on merits is always better course unless the concerned party is extremely negligent or the conduct shows a will not to pursue the complaint, dismissal in default shall not subserve the cause of justice.  No such eventuality seems to be there which will exhibit extreme negligence or a will not to pursue the complaint. Therefore, this Commission deems it appropriate to restore the complaint of the complainant. 

5.       Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the order dated September 10^th, 2015 is set-aside.  The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on December 24^th, 2015.

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

  

 

Announced 17.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK