Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/35/2015

Ford India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. Punam Mehta - Opp.Party(s)

Karan Nehra, Adv.

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Revision Petition No.	:	35 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	25.8.2015
Date of Decision		26.08.2015

 

Ford India Pvt. Ltd, S.P. Kholi Post Chengal Potto- 603204, Tamil Nadu, through its Directors.

Revision Petitioner

V e r s u s

1.   Ms. Punam Mehta w/o Sh. Subhash Mehta House No.1079, Sector 19B, Chandigarh

2.   Bhagat Ford (A B Motors Pvt. Ltd., 53 Industrial Area Phase II Chandigarh) through its Directors.

3.   Service Manager, Car Service centre of Bhagat Ford (A B Motors Pvt. Ltd, 53, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh.)

              ....Respondents

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY

               

Argued by: Sh. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner.

                    Ms. Punam Mehta, respondent No.1/complainant in person.  

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

       This Revision-Petition is directed against the order dated 31.07.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, Opposite Party No.3 (now Revision-Petitioner), was proceeded against exparte.

2.            The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant got his vehicle make Ford Monedeo bearing no. Ch-03H-0345 serviced from Opposite Party NO.2 and for which  he paid services charges to it. It was stated that  Opposite Party No.2 did not give proper service to his vehicle and, therefore, she made several requests to Opposite Party No.2  for re-check of the vehicle but to no avail. It was further stated  that due to faulty and negligence service of the Opposite Parties the bonnet of the car busted open by itself while the vehicle was still on the move and shattered the front wind shield just running 10 Kms after service at the night of same day when the service was got done.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, claiming various reliefs. 

3.            Despite deemed service, none put in appearance,  on behalf of Opposite Party No.3,  before the District Forum, as a result whereof, it was  proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 31.07.2015.

4.            Feeling aggrieved, the instant Revision-Petition, was filed by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, against the order dated 31.07.2015.

5.            We have heard the Counsel for the Revision- Petitioner, respondent no.1 in person, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.                 The Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.3, submitted that, no doubt, on 31.07.2015, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, in the District Forum, in the consumer complaint, bearing No.315 of 2015. He further submitted that, on receipt of notice in the consumer complaint, the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3 had forwarded the matter to its Counsel  in New Delhi through email to immediately send the necessary documents to its local Counsel for defending the consumer complaint. He further submitted that, however, inadvertently the Counsel  at Delhi tagged the printout of the said email with some other file. He has further submitted that as soon as this fact came to the notice of the Counsel  at New Delhi, he immediately got in touch with the Counsel  at Chandigarh and requested him to appear in the matter. He has further submitted that upon receiving the instructions, the local Counsel  enquired about the ase and found that an exparte order has been passed against the Revision Petitioner. He further submitted that absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, on 31.07.2015, in the District Forum, was, thus, neither intentional, nor deliberate, but for the reasons, aforesaid. He further submitted that, in case, the order impugned is not set aside, irreparable injury is likely to occur, to the Revision-Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.3, 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.3, is liable to be set aside. 

7.                 On the other hand, respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that absence of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, on 31.07.2015, despite deemed service, in the District Forum, was intentional and deliberate. She, however, submitted that she had no objection if the order impugned is set aside, subject to payment of costs.

8.             Perusal of the District Forum record, reveals that the complaint was admitted, vide order dated   18.06.2015,   and    notice    was ordered  to be issued to the Opposite Parties, for 31.07.2015. On 31.07.2015, notice sent to Opposite Party No.3 through registered A.D. cover  was received back with the report “unserved.” Since more than 30 days had lapsed, from the date of issuance of notice, the District Forum, presumed that Opposite Party No.3, had been duly served. However, despite deemed service, no legally authorized representative, on its behalf,  put in appearance, as a result whereof, Opposite Party No.3, was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 31.07.2015.

9.         Admittedly, the notice sent for the service of Opposite Party No.3, on 18.06.2015, for the date fixed i.e. 31.07.2015, was received by it. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the Revision-Petitioner that the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, could not appear, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, on account of the reason narrated above. However, the plea taken by the Revision-Petitioner, in this regard, does not carry any weight, as the same is not supported by the affidavit of the said Counsel  at Delhi, who allegedly forgot to comply with the instructions, referred to above. The Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, failed to produce, on record, any document, depicting the actual reason, for its non-appearance, in the District Forum, on the date fixed i.e. 31.07.2015, Therefore, in the absence of production of any cogent material, in the shape of document(s), the bald assertion of the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, with regard to its absence, in the District Forum, on the date fixed i.e. 31.07.2015, cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, it means that despite service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, for the reasons, best known to it, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.

10.         However, 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. In State of Punjab and another vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr., AIR 1976 SC 1177, 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 such 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.

11.             In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to Opposite Party No.3, for filing vakalatnama, written version, and evidence, by way of affidavit(s), so that the complaint could be decided, on merits, and the rights of the Parties are finally determined, by the Forum, one way or the other. In this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

12.             For, whatsoever, the reason may be, by not appearing, in the District Forum, on the date fixed, and not filing the Vakalatnama, written version, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, certainly caused delay, in the disposal of complaint, on merits. According to Section 13 (3A) of the Act, an endeavour should be made to decide every complaint, within three months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s), except the one, in which the goods are required to be sent to the Laboratory, for examination. In that event, an endeavour should be made to decide the complaint, within a period of 5 months, from the date of service of the Opposite Party(s).  The complaint was filed, in the District Forum, on 16.06.2015. Since, the case is being remanded back, certainly delay shall be caused, in the disposal thereof. The Revision-Petitioner is, thus, required to be burdened with costs, for causing delay, in the disposal of complaint and to meet the ends of justice.

13.             For the reasons recorded above, the Revision-Petition is accepted. The order dated 31.07.2015, rendered by the District Forum, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-, by the Revision-Petitioner/Opposite Party No.3, to respondent No.1/complainant. The District Forum shall grant only one reasonable opportunity, to Opposite Party No.3, for filing vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s), and thereafter decide the complaint, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law. The payment of cost to the tune of Rs.3,000/-, referred to above, to respondent No.1/complainant, shall be a condition precedent. In other words, the payment of cost, shall be made, before filing the vakalatnama, written reply, alongwith evidence, by way of affidavit(s). 

14.             The parties are directed to appear, before District Forum (II) on 07.09.2015 at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings.

15.               The District Forum record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back, to it, immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 07.09.2015  at 10.30 A.M.

16.              Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.             The Revision-Petition file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

 

Pronounced.

26.8.2015