Haryana

StateCommission

A/158/2016

VIPIN SOLANKI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEERU ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

J.B.SHARMA

04 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          First Appeal No.    158 of 2016

Date of Institution:  23.02.2016

Date of Decision:    04.05.2016

 

 

Vipin Solanki son of Sh. Uday Pal Solanki, resident of Village House No.A-132, Durga Vihar, New Delhi presently residing at House No.608, Sector 18, Faridabad.

Appellant-Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

1.      M/s Neeru Electronics, 2, Main Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi through its Authorized Signatory.

 

2.      M/s J.M.A Services Authorized Service Station of Voltas Limited, Shop No.6, Choudhary Des Raj Market, Anangpur Dairy, Sector 37, Faridabad through its Incharge/Principal Officer.

 

3.      M/s Voltas Limited, Voltas B 1-J 2, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi, 110044 through its Incharge/Principal Officer.

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

      

Present:     Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant

                   Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 3

                    

                            

O R D E R

 

 

 NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated January 21^st, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the complaint was dismissed in default.

2.      Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the impugned order be set aside and complaint be restored at its original number.

3.      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.

4.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set-aside. The complaint is restored to the board of the District Forum for adjudication on merits.

5.      The District Forum is directed to issue notice to the parties and shall proceed in accordance with law.

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

 

Announced 04.05.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK