Haryana

StateCommission

RP/4/2016

HUDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PALE RAM - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH SHARMA

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Revision Petition No  :  04 of 2016

Date of Institution:        08.01.2016

Date of Decision :         02.02.2016

 

Haryana Urban Development Authority, through its Estate Officer, II, Sector 34, Gurgaon, Haryana.

                                      Petitioner-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Pale Ram aged about 68 years son of late Shri Phula Ram, resident of House No.735/28, Bharat Colony, Rohtak, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

                                                                                                                  

Present:               Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for petitioner.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

The instant revision petition has been filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority-opposite party against the order dated September 18^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby the petitioner was proceeded exparte.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that notice of the complaint was misplaced and as such, the appellant could not appear.  

3.      He further urged that the impugned order be set aside; opportunity be granted to the petitioner to file reply and contest the complaint.  The next date of hearing before the District Forum is February 17^th, 2016.

4.      Be that as it may and without delving deeper, this Commission is of the opinion that 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.

5.      Accordingly, this revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside subject to the conditional cost of Rs.5000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, on the date fixed, before the District Forum. Consequently, the petitioner is accorded opportunity to file reply and join the proceedings.

6.      This revision petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent 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.

7.      The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum, on February 17^th, 2016, the date already fixed.

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

 

Announced 02.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK