Haryana

StateCommission

A/722/2016

HANUMAN PARSAD GARG - Complainant(s)

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. - Opp.Party(s)

ARVIND RAJOTIA

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

 

                                                First Appeal No.           722 of 2016

                                      Date of Institution:       08.08.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         29.09.2016

 

Hanuman Parsad Garg s/o Sh. Gangadhar, R/o House No.86-A, New Grain Market, Hissar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office (353402), SCO 23-24, 2^nd floor, LIC building, HUDA ground, Urban Estate, Jind-126102 through its Branch Manager.

2.      The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Red Square Market, Hissar through its Divisional Manager.

                              Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

                                                 

Present:     Ms. Gunjan Gera, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Shri Nitin Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

 

                                                    O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

By filing the instant appeal, Hanuman Parsad Garg–complainant (appellant herein) has challenged the order dated July 11^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short District Forum) whereby, complaint filed by him 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 at its original number.

5.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 13.10.2016.

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

 

 

Announced: 29.09.2016

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member