Haryana

StateCommission

RP/85/2015

M/s MVL Limited - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Parkash - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                Revision Petition No.   85 of 2015

                                                Date of Institution:       12.10.2015

                                                Date of Decision:         15.10.2015

  

1.      M/s MVL Limited, Millennium Plaza, Tower A, Ground Floor, Sushant Lok-1, Sector 27, Gurgaon-122002 through its CEO.

 

2.      MVL Limited, 1 Park, 6^th Floor, Near Red Cross Society, Chandan Nagar, Sector 15-II, Gurgaon-122001, through its Chairman.

Petitioners-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

1.      Om Parkash, aged 48 years.

2.      Hans Raj Sharma, aged 42 years, both sons of Sh. Ved Parkash, r/o Village Silokhra, Tehsil and District Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana).

Respondents-Complainants

 

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

                   Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

Present :    Sh. P.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

                    By filing this revision petition, M/s MVL Limited and another-opposite parties (petitioners) have challenged the order dated August 10^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum), Gurgaon, whereby, their defence was struck off for non-filing of reply.

2.                Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the impugned order be set aside and opportunity be given to the petitioners to file reply.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is December 14^th, 2015.

3.                Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Salim Haiji Abdul Khayumsab versus Kumar and others, 2005 (4), RCR (Civil), 823, observed that the object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried.  No party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Thus, this revision petition is allowed and the order dated August 10^th, 2015 is set-aside subject to conditional cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the complainants. Consequently, the petitioners are accorded opportunity to file reply on the date fixed before the District Forum, that is, December 14^th, 2015.

4.                This 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 High Court of Punjab and Haryana Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No. 9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.

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

 

October 15th, 2015

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M.Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

U.K