Haryana

StateCommission

RP/93/2015

Sidak Automobiles Private Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Neetu Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

18 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

Revision Petition No  :          93 of 2015

Date of Institution:        08.12.2015

Date of Decision :         18.12.2015

 

Sidak Automobiles Private Limited, 71/3, Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Director Tarsem Singla.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Neetu Sharma son of Sh. Devi Dass, resident of Village and Post Office Saha, District Ambala.

Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      United India Insurance Company Limited, Durga Bhawani Temple, G.T. Karnal Road, Near Bus Stand, Karnal – 132001 (Haryana), through its Manager.

 

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:               Ms. Simarpreet Kaur, Advocate for petitioner.

 

 

                                                   O R D E R

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          Sidak Automobiles Private Limited-opposite party No.2 (petitioner herein) is in revision against the orders dated October 07^th and 09^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte and it’s application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed, respectively.

2.      Neetu Sharma– complainant (respondent herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.      Justice is the goal of jurisprudence.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.   The ends of justice would be met if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  For whatever inconvenience has been caused to the other side suitable costs shall be the remedy.

4.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the orders dated October 07^th and 09^th, 2015 are set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.2000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. The petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

5.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents 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 27^th, 2002.

6.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on December 21^st, 2015, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 18.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK