View 15801 Cases Against New India Assurance
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. filed a consumer case on 22 Jan 2016 against NEELKANTH THERMOTECH in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is RP/5/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Mar 2016.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Revision Petition No : 05 of 2016
Date of Institution: 14.01.2016
Date of Decision : 22.01.2016
New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager at Akash Cinema Complex, Mohna Road, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Now represented through the duly authorized signatory of Regional Office at SCO No.36-37, Sector 17A, Chandigarh.
Petitioner-Opposite Party
Versus
M/s Neelkanth Thermotech, Plot No.86, Sector 59, Part II, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad (Haryana) through its Proprietor/ Partner Mr. Mahender Kumar Breja.
Respondent-Complainant
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member
Present: Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for petitioner.
O R D E R
NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)
The instant revision petition has been filed by M/s Neelkanth Thermotech, Faridabad-opposite party against the order dated December 11th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (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 reply and contest the complaint. The next date of hearing before the District Forum is January 29th, 2016.
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:-
“Notice was sent to opposite party through registered post on 05.11.2015. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party. It is already 4.00 P.M. Therefore, opposite party is proceeded against ex parte.
To come up for filing affidavit of the complainant on 29.01.2016”
4. Perusal of record reveals that on December 11th, 2015, 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. It is always better to decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the technicalities or formalities on the part of either party, this Commission is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply 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 reply and join the proceedings.
6. This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.
7. The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on January 29th, 2016, the date already fixed.
8. Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.
Announced 22.01.2016 | (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member | (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member | (Nawab Singh) President |
UK
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.