Haryana

StateCommission

A/637/2015

HARISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

ROHIT GOSWAMI

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.   637 of 2015

Date of Institution: 29.07.2015

Date of Decision:   26.08.2015

 

Harish Kumar son of Sh. Shankar Dass, resident of House No.34, Jawahar Nagar, Bank Colony, District Karnal at present House No.33, Karan Vihar, Karnal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

New India Assurance Company Limited, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

                            Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

         

                                      

Present:     Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant

                   Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent.

                    

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

By filing the present appeal, Harish Kumar–complainant has challenged the orders dated May 27^th and October 27^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Karnal, whereby, the complaint was dismissed in default and the application for restoration of complaint was dismissed, respectively.

2.      Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’), before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (respondent herein).

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

4.      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. 

5.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the orders dated May 27^th and October 27^th, 2014 are set-aside. The complaint is restored at its original number.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on September 15^th, 2015.

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

 

 

Announced: 26.08.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK