Haryana

StateCommission

RP/10/2020

MAKE MY TRIP - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIKHIL NARWAL AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

HARSH VARDHAN

27 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Revision Petition No.10   of 2020

 Date of Institution:22.01.2020

  Date  of  Decision:27.01.2020

 

Makemy Trip (India Pvt. Ltd. Building No.5, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III Gurgaon 122002.

…..Petitioner

Versus

 

1.      Nikhil Narwal S/o Sh.Ashwani Narwal, village Dhanaura, Tehsil Mullana, Ambala, Haryana.

 

2.      Spicejet Limited, 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon 122016 through CEO.

 

3.      Punjab National Bank Dosarka, Tehsil Mullana, Distt. Ambala through Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial  Member

                    Mrs. Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Nitin Bhasin, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

                                                 ORDER

HARNAM SINGH THAKUR,  JUDICIAL MEMBER:

           

          Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated  26.12.2019 in complaint No.370 of 2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short ‘District Forum) vide which  present petitioner/O.P.No.2 and respondent No.2/O.P.No.1 were  proceeded against ex parte.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the on 08.08.2019, complainant booked flight of opposite party (O.P.) No.1 through  O.P.No.2 and paid amount through O.P.No.3 from his saving account amounting to Rs.29774/-.  The complainant had china Visa from 09 September 2019 to 09^th December 2019.  O.Ps. charged Rs.27,921/- from him for departure and arrival flight in India. He reached Hong Kong and then reached Nansa City through Ferry ship and remained there upto 25^th Day of October 2019. And when complainant visited nearby port for getting back to the Hong Kong International Airport to take his morning flight to Delhi through Ferry but that port not allowed him and they said that they cannot give service to this Airlines. He contacted the O.Ps. on phone but not get any response.  No port was allowed to give service to Spicejet. He purchased email to OP No.1 at his email address, but, no reply was received. He made a new ticket of Rs.3914 CNY (Chinese currency) to coming back to the country. He again sent email to OPs on 30.10.2019, but, they refused to resolve his problem. He suffered loss of Rs,1,00,000/- of monetary loss for getting new flight and going to the International Air port and an injustice to the complainant.  There was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Nitin Bhasin, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.      While unfolding the arguments, it has been argued by Sh.Nitin Bhasin, the learned counsel for the revisionist that petitioner has only received the summons of the complainant issued by the learned District Forum on 23.11.2019. The petitioner hired the services of the present counsel at Ambala, to appear and represent the revisionist on the said date of hearing. The revisionist has also sent the Vakalatnama as well as Board resolution to the counsel to be filed on the next date of hearing. The counsel has also drafted the reply and sent the same to the revisionist for their approval on 17.12.2019, which was approved on the same day.  The learned counsel has wrongly noted the next date of hearing in his court diary as 27.12.2019 instead of 26.12.2019.  Due to inadvertent mistake on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist, the petitioner was not represented before the learned District forum on 26.12.2019 and accordingly, proceeded ex parte by the learned District Forum.  Learned counsel for the revisionist prayed that  ex parte proceeding dated 26.12.2019 be set aside.

5.        In view of the above submissions and careful perusal of the entire record, it is true that ex parte proceedings were initiated against O.P.No.1 and present petitioner/respondent No.2.  It is golden principle of law that proper opportunity should be afforded to the concerned party before deciding the case on merits. The complainant is not going to suffer any irreparable loss if the revisionist-O.P. No.2 is afforded an opportunity to defend them before the learned forum, so in these circumstances, ex parte  proceedings dated 26.12.2019 against  O.P. No.2-petitioner is set aside subject to the payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to be paid to respondent No.1/complainant.  Revision Petition is allowed.  Let the petitioner be afforded an opportunity to file reply and lead evidence etc. thereafter the complaint be decided on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the learned Forum on 29.01.2020 for further proceedings, in accordance with law.

7.      This revision petition has been disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to imparting 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 judgement of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No.9563 of 2002) decided on June 27, 2002.

8.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum and dasti copy be given to learned counsel for revisionist.

 

27th  January, 2020           Manjula,                                Harnam Singh Thakur                                                      Member                                 Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)